ITC Gives Rambus (*cough* Patent Troll *cough*) Permission to Investigate Nvidia
Posted 12/05/08 at 03:39:41 PM by Paul Lilly
Comments
Print
Email
If Rambus could find a way to take people to court just for using the word 'memory,' we have little doubt it would. In the meantime, the legal beagles at Rambus have set their sights on Nvidia and has been granted its request by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to investigate the GPU maker, along with any company using Nvidia products beleived to be infringing.
"In its complaint, Rambus has alleged infringement of nine Rambus patents," Rambus wrote in a press release. "The accused products include NVIDIA products that incorporate DDR, DDR2, DDR3, LPDDR, GDDR, GDDR2, and GDDR3 memory controllers, including graphics processors, and media and communications processors."
The dispute over Nvidia's products isn't a new one and dates back to July, when Rambus accused Nvidia of violating 17 patents covering chipsets, graphics processors, and media communication processors. At the time, Rambus claimed it had spent six years trying to sell Nvidia a license to use its technology, and wanted an injunction preventing Nvidia from selling allegedly infringing products.
And Nvidia also suing RAMBUS back..
Submitted by Okay12 on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 8:55pm
Here..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4035349/Complaint-Nvidia-v-Rambus
Good read. Here is a court filing from nvidia against rambus dated
7-11-08.
Submitted by Okay12 on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 8:44pm
See page 37.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/060802commissionopinion.pdf
PUBLIC RECORD VERSION
dispute about what Rambus did, because much of the evidence in the record regarding Rambus’s conduct came from Rambus’s own documents and witnesses.170
Based on that evidence, we find that Rambus concealed the patent applications it filed, and the patents it obtained, until JEDEC had adopted its SDRAM and DDR SDRAM standards. Once those standards were adopted, Rambus abused their adoption by suing firms that practiced the standards for patent infringement. Rambus also used information derived from JEDEC meetings to develop a patent portfolio that would cover JEDEC’s SDRAM standards – a practice which, although it may not be clearly “deceptive” standing alone, nonetheless facilitates hold-up in a cooperative standard-setting context.
The record reveals the following chronology of events.
a. The Chronology of Concealment
1991. JEDEC was in the early stages of work on the SDRAM standard171 when Rambus attended its first JEDEC meeting and joined JEDEC in December 1991.172 Within a few days of that JEDEC meeting, Rambus’s Executive Vice President (EVP), Allen Roberts, called Lester Vincent, Rambus’s outside patent counsel, to speak with him about “patent deadlines”; Roberts also informed staff that a Rambus goal for the first quarter of 1992 was “patent filing.”173
1992. Rambus engineer William Garrett represented Rambus at its first JEDEC meeting as a member in February 1992. Following the meeting, Garrett reported to his supervisors that SDRAMs were inevitable and that SDRAM could be standardized sooner than expected.174 Shortly afterwards, on March 5, 1992, Rambus responded to the PTO’s restriction requirement175
Nope, I am the last to write
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:25pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Fuck off...
Submitted by winmaster on Mon, 12/29/2008 - 8:40am
Can't you see people are trying to have a discussion here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 12:24pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here, Mr. pwnd.
what you got ta say now
Submitted by nekollx on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 10:39pm
what you got ta say now sukka!
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 12:09pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here, Mr. pwned.
Submitted by nekollx on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 12:11pm
Differ I will, beg to do....
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:25pm
And the honour of the 75th comment goes to ......... ME!!
I would like to thank the honourable judges for giving me this award. And of course, ME!!!
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:22pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:19pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:19pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:18pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:18pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:17pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:17pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:17pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:17pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:16pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:16pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:16pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:16pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:16pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:13pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here
Well it's been at least
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 11:29am
Well it's been at least 12hours since the last post on this blog.. Is it over on this blog? Nobody has anything more to say?
Ha ha ha ha... I get the last word....ha ha ha........
Submitted by n0t_a_n00b2 on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 3:18pm
Nope, I am the last to write on here.
Submitted by xs0u1x on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 8:15pm
no you dont@! i get the last word!
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 12:41am
Um... Ok..
Submitted by bcweir on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 9:13pm
You will ALL BE SUED for copyright infringement!
Submitted by nekollx on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 2:33pm
the term "patent Troll" has nothing to do with legitimacy, muck like a Forum Troll Trolling is excessive and constent badgering. Justified or not Rambus is still "trolling" by Interwebz standards.
I still dont see...why nVidia and why now....
Submitted by ghot on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 12:51pm
ATI has only been with AMD for what, a year or two now? I can't understand why nVidia (assuming Rambus actually has a valid case) would not also have paid Rambus royalties et al? At the time these suits started, nVidia had a much larger market share than ATI....I would think they would MORE readily pay licensing fees or royalties, assuming Rambus actually has a valid case. I'm more willing to believe that Rambus is simply suing or threatening to sue anyone they can. I think nVidia just stood up and said: NO! :)
Submitted by AppleOunce on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 2:51am
They actually requested that the DRAM makers indemnify them in 2000. And they continued to infringe. Why would they if there was better tachnology than Rambus's?
Take a look at items 84, 86 and 87.
http://rambus.org/legal/hynix/2004-09-20_H-R_487_Appendix_T_annotated.pdf
Willful infringement carries triple damages.
All the best, turtle wax.
Opinions
Submitted by GreenTurtle on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 5:32am
Is this how you attempt to sway public opinion, through insults?
Not a particularly good business model. You might want to head back to valuevillage.com or whatever site your from....oh..excuse me ..... investorvillage.com to regroup.
But then who cares right!!! as long as the lawsuits and money keep rolling in, who cares what people think.That is what you said right? They only answer to the investors in the company and the stocks have doubled in two weeks.
Submitted by ghot on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 3:10pm
Why aren't they suing ATI, Corsair, OCZ, VIA, Intel and every other company that uses memory? Why nVidia lol?
Background info
Submitted by jwalch.hawk on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 7:35pm
AMD/ATI already settled in court and is paying Rambus royalties.
IIRC, Intel never had to go to court about it and has paid Rambus royalties for quite a while now.
I'm pretty sure you can throw Samsung and Toshiba into the hat also.
It is an interesting point that Rambus does not appear interested in targetting the major DDR manufacturers, though.
**EDIT**: This is because they are concerned with the memory controller itself, not the actual memory... Since a stick of RAM doesn't control itself (but is instead controlled either by the CPU or the chipset, depending on which particular architecture you're talking about). Ergo, they could really care less about Corsair,OCZ, etc. because they don't actually make controllers as far as I know.
**Not an edit** It's a tricky situation, because if Rambus had their way, they would be squeezing the hell out of everyone on licensing fees. They've had the FTC on their backs about anti-trust stuff early in the millenium as a product of that. That said, their initial invention really did a lot for modern memory, and imho they probably have not gotten what they deserve for it.
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 5:09pm
Shhhhhhhhh They will...
Submitted by RAID on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 12:03pm
I've conducted extensive research and have come across some eye opening information that I would like to share with you. Without RAMBUS the following would have never been possible:
- the Iraq war
- WNBA
- Enron
- 9/11
- Global warming
- Virginia Tech massacre
- AIDS
- the current economic recession
And the list goes on. Good job RAMBUS
Submitted by killallinfringers on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 10:08am
Drew and not U, If Rambus' IP is obsolete, why are so many memory & controller manufactureres stealing their technology? If the infringing companies could invent around Rambus' still ground breaking technologies, they would. They can't. Rambus has over 1,000 patents & patent applications, so the infringers better be prepared to pay Rambus for using their IP out into the forseeable future. It must be a fairytale world in which companies can just steal others patented IP because they want it but then think they can refuse to pay. Pay up, or stop using the IP, but even if they stop using it (impossible), they still owe for past infringement, some of which will be deemed willfull and subject to up to triple damages. IMHO
Rash of New Accounts
Submitted by drew and not u on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 9:09am
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070205/124217.shtml
"Still, that never stops the somewhat rabid investors in Rambus from flooding many message boards insisting that the company can do no wrong -- and anyone who points to some of the more questionable patenting activities of the company is obviously part of some grand conspiracy (we've even been accused of corruption after discussing one Rambus case)."
I could care less what RAMBUS may have done in the past, lots of companies started out as a "good guy." Today they're nothing more than a sad, obsolete organizations, getting by leeching off of other companies innovations.
Submitted by GreenTurtle on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 6:55am
I appreciate all the info provided in the posts. I can now make an informed decision on the matter.
After reading all of the information; I came to a realization...... I really don't care. Honestly.
Origional decision stands. * PATENT TROLL *
Submitted by ScruffyNYC on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 3:37am
Meet Mike Farmwald, one of the inventors of the Rambus system forcreating ultra-fast chip to chip connections, especially those used in memorysystems!
http://www.farmwald.com/mikehtml.html
One interesting point that is seldom publicized but can befound in the transcripts from many of the litigation venues is that Mikeoriginally approached IBM about this new way ofspeeding up memory chips.
He could not get an audience at IBM, but was introduced toa retired "IBM Fellow". Mikeflew out for a meeting at the man's upstate New York home. He scribbled theRambus concepts on a napkin. A few days later, IBM offered Rambus 10 milliondollars for the rights to the system. Rambus (all 2 employees at the time)turned down 10 million bucks in 1990!
IBM saw something thatwould change the industry. Michael Dell saw it (pg 144 of his book), butunfortunately for Rambus, a criminal cartel made up of multi-billion dollar,multi-national memory chip manufacturers saw it too and decided to sign NDA's,incorporate the Rambus technology and through their combined efforts and political connections to destroyRambus.
Fortunately for Rambus, they have not only survived but are thriving as they have been winning court case after court case against the companies that tried to destroy them, and have continued to invent the things that the industry doesn’t even know it needs yet!
Submitted by Napoleon_on_Elba on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 4:49am
Meet Mark Horowitz, the other founder of Rambus
http://www-vlsi.stanford.edu/~horowitz/
Paul Lilly...
Submitted by QUINTIX256 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 1:15am
...knows his stuff. Only 100mhz without the miracle of Rambus? (" You'd still be working with 100MHz if Rambus hadn't come along." to use your very own words.) C'mon, are you thinking a little highly of this company? For God's sake, I check out that rambus.org page, and there is a stock ticker right on their page, going up of course. I go browsing around... so-called investment advice.
My primary complaint was about these lengthy posts by people posting for the first time, and I openly suggested that they are on rambus's payroll, directly or indirectly (like you probably).
Submitted by dadocisout2006 on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 11:43pm
It is probably the first time that you have see this flurry because it is the first time folks who know the Rambus story have stumbled accross this particular idiot page. It has nothing to do with any corporate Rambus strategy. It deals with people who follow the Rambus story and know who is trying to screw whom.
Submitted by QUINTIX256 on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 10:43pm
"thieving cartel of the biggest memory companies"
"BLAZING FAST at 33Mhz"
"You'd still be working with 100MHz if Rambus hadn't come along."
O.k, 33Mhz, 100Mhz, a 3x multiplier?
It has been a long time since I seen so many prompt long comments, let alone long impassioned comments against a prevailing view by first time posters. O.k, admitedly I am a first time poster, but still... I wonder if RAMBUS has a underground P.R. campaign that exceeds the cost of their legal fees --I mean--R&D and cost of innovation.
If these impassioned first time posters have IP addresses from the same general area, then they should all be smacked with a ban stick, if not investigated.
Submitted by AppleOunce on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 6:28am
Meet all the <i>first time posters</i> here at http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&pt=m They are all long-time posters there. Someone gave us a heads up on the crap spewed here.
Submitted by jwalch.hawk on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 10:06pm
The posts being ridiculous is almost to be expected.
What's ridiculous was this article, or more specifically the title...
C'mon, Mr. Lilly... How in the hell can you, as a journalist and thus with a vested interest in, be so flippant about the treatment of IP? This is disappointing to me, because for the most part I've liked your articles on here. :/
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.