ITC Gives Rambus (*cough* Patent Troll *cough*) Permission to Investigate Nvidia

86

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Watzman

Some of the posts here are just unbelievable.  Let's take this one:

"every time I hear about this company it drives me nuts. I don't even know if they have contributed anything substantial recently"

Rambus invents things, patents them and tried to license them for very reasonable royalty rates.  The company has over 1,200 patents either issued or applied for.  Their original family of patents, the "Farmwald Horowitz patents" (FH) were applied for in 1990 and contained a group of inventions without which ***NO*** form of modern memory (ANYTHING from SDRAM onward) will work.  And, contrary to what many people believe, these inventions were not stolen from Jedec, the patents were applied for years before Rambus ever joined Jedec or attended a Jedec meeting.  [The history of the claim that Rambus stole these inventions from Jedec is lengthy, but the charge has been heard in a bunch of courts including both by judges and, in different courts, by juries, and in EVERY case, Rambus has ultimately been found NOT to have "stolen the invention from Jedec".]

Get that:  INVENTIONS WITHOUT WHICH ***NO*** FORM OF MODERN COMPUTER MEMORY WOULD WORK.

The FH patents expire in 2010, but Rambus has later patents (most significantly, the "Ware" patents) without which DDR3 and all later forms of memory would not work, and they don't expire until 2021.

[No one claims that Rambus invented the memory itself, per se, but without Rambus' patents, the memory simply would not work.]

The whole Rambus thing started because Rambus wanted a 1.5% royalty (ONE POINT FIVE PERCENT) on memory using it's inventions.  But the industry (the BIG multi-billion dollar multinational corporations ... Samsung, Micron, Hynix, Siemens (Infineon/Quimonda), NVidia, etc.) looked at Rambus (then a TINY company with a couple dozen employees)  and decided that the company's demands could simply be ignored and if it came to litigation, they could simply bury Rambus with the legal costs of the patent fight and ultimately put them out of business [They were very nearly right:  The Rambus cases have been in court now for NINE YEARS, Rambus has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on legal fees (one-quarter to one-half of it's total revenue) and Rambus has yet to collect one cent from most of these firms (anyone see the recent movie "Flash of Genius"?  This case is much, much worse).

However, Rambus has survived and is actually WINNING these cases, and the end ... THE END ... is very near (probably next year).  Only the tab has grown.  A LOT.  These firms mounted a campaign to put Rambus out of business, they committed illegal acts of anti-trust conspiracy, and now Rambus is on the verge of getting judgments for both the patent infringments and the anti-trust crimes that may total $10 to $20 BILLION for PAST damages, plus royalties that may run to 6% or more for FUTURE production (possibly trebled if the courts find (and they will) that the infringement of Rambus' patents has been "willful".

The problem is not that Rambus' inventions are not used.  Oh, they are used in EVERYTHING.  The problem is that for TEN YEARS the inventions have just been stolen.  And that is all that it is, pure, simple outright theft.  Premeditated, planned and willful.  But the time to "pay the piper" is coming, and the price for ten years of felony crimes .... BOTH the patent infringement AND the anti-trust .... is coming.

[Rambus has already won it's patent case on SDRAM and DDR against Hynix, in a series of 3 trials that began in 2005 and ended this spring (Rambus won all 3 trials ... the infringement trial and the counter charges that Rambus acted improperly in obtaining and using the patents having been heard by two different juries that both decided every single count and charge in Rambus' favor.]

The consolidated patent infringement trial against Hynix [on DDR2 & DDR3], Samsung, Micron and Nanya (all memory products) starts in January 2009, and effectively Rambus has won that before the trial even starts because last week the court issued a "summary judgment" in Rambus' favor on one of the 12 counts in the case (this is a ruling that the guilt on that is so grossly obvious and clear that it is declared by the court and does not even need to be heard by the jury.

The Anti-trust trial of Samsung, Hynix and Micron is in March (in a different court).  Note that all 3 firms have already plead guilty to criminal anti-trust charges by the US Department of Justice, and that executives from all 3 firms have served or are serving prison sentences.  Nice justice, in a way, but the billion dollars in fines went to the department of Justice and did't help Rambus one bit.  Now, in this civil trial, Rambus gets to go after the firms for the damages that their illegal acts and conspiracy inflicted on the company.  The damages are in the BILLIONS, and anti-trust case carry "triple damages" and also "joint and several" damages.  The total damages in the anti-trust case alone could reach or possibly exceed $10 BILLION dollars.  All because these firms spent more than a decade (almost two decades, in fact) plotting to steal Rambus' inventions and put them out of business rather than pay what was a 1.5% royalty.  It's going to become one of the most "insanely expensive"crimes in history.

[Part of the conspiracy was making charges and getting editors to write and publish things about Rambus that were not true (sometimes innocently and sometimes not).  If you tell a lie and repeat it often enough, it becomes accepted as the truth.  MANY people still believe many false accusations made about Rambus and also about RDRAM memory.  However, NO court, either in a bench case or a jury case, has ever issued an opinion averse to Rambus on any of these charges that was upheld, while, so far, every court that heard a Rambus case (with one exception that was overturned on appeal) has ruled against the memory makers as to their acts of patent infringment.]

avatar

GreenTurtle

 It's like I said; all I hear in the news about Rambus is another lawsuit. Never another "invention". Hence; it drives me nuts.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Yeah I agree with you. I only get a little news here and from HardOCP.com and then I have to give my job as a City bus Operator my full attention and then what's left goes to my wife and children of witch I have three with a newborn last wednesday. 

I'm just mentioning that I think most of the bloggers here get their information from other news websites. I don't think they really dig deep to check their sources other than the news sites.

 

I'm sure with your intervening posts a retraction will probably be fourth coming.

 

As I said you did an excellent job. I only made my posts based off of news of the nonstop lawsuits. I didn't really know the details until now.

 

When I make a post here on the site I am just posting my oppinion based on the news in the blog entry. \

 

I would not call any blogger a hack though. Or any other names. If there is a mistake made I would just post a correction. Correct the blogger with information you know. Most of the bloggers here do not write for the mag. They make blog posts here on the site. That is how I understand it.

I don't work for MPC. I'm just a subscriber like everyone else here. I'm just coming to defend an honest mistake. We all make mistakes.

 

avatar

dadocisout2006

Mr. Whisman,

 An acknowledgement of reinforcing untruths is nice but does not undo the damage of perpetuating a myth, one that has been repeated so often that people believe.

Go to Rambus.org read the story and follow the legal threads.  Then post something that means something.  Complaining about "hack" epithets is ludicrous when information is posted that has only been superficially researched.  I don't care who was hired to do it.  If one doesn't like the label then one should be more careful of how and what one reports.

avatar

gamingmoron

Here's a great idea for all of you that get so riled up when you hear about Rambus and their lawsuits . . . try to find out the facts.  On one side you have a conniving, thieving cartel of the biggest memory companies that saw what another company invented and decided they wanted to take it and not pay for it.  So they attempted to litigate the small company (the same one that made all the games you play possible by the way) to oblivion and along with the help of one corrupt federal judge and blatantly corrupt FTC officials, they nearly succeeded.  I'm not going to spoon-feed you and tell you about all of the evidence, it's out there and can be found.  I get really riled up when idiots talk about things that they have no clue about, so maybe you should read the FACTS that are out there (although you'll probably be embarassed about all the word-vomit that came out of your mouth) and save me some aggravation in the process.  While you're at it, tell paul lilly where you found the info and have him read it too because he DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE about this subject either.  I doubt you'll bother though . . . it's much easier to be BIASED and IGNORANT than to actually learn something.  At least mr. lilly gets paid for his propoganda, what's your excuse keith?

avatar

GreenTurtle

 Nice goin' Keith!!! You tell him!!!! I read their posts at http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&pt=m and they were talking about bombarding our forums like this, so, here it is I guess.

 I agree Keith. I attack when attacked because it pisses me off. I stayed away from the forums awhile because of it; but this crap I couldn't let go.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

It's good that people come here to post their opinions and show evidence as we see on this page. It's all excellent. 

I'm impressed with the level of detail people are bringing here. But the attacks some of them are making is unjustified. When they attack others they lower the impact their other statements hold. I find I lose my enthusiasm for listening to them. I'm sure others feel the same. 

 

Perhaps it's a generational thing. 

 

 

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

I COMPLIMENT YOU AND YOU INSULT ME.. WELL F*CK YOU...... I WAS IMPRESSED WITH YOUR  KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT. YOU DON'T KNOW ME AND HAVE NO RIGHT TO ACUSE ME OF HAVING A LOW IQ. SO JUST GO F*CK OFF... I'M SICK OF ASSHOLES LIKE YOU... GAMINGMORON.

 

As a matter of fact I'm sick of the attacks people make. People misspell something and get attacked. People try to make a statement and try to have an intelligent conversation others take apart what was written and make quotes and do their best to make the other poster look like a fool. Rather than using tact people try to be as much an ahole as they can. I'm sick of this crap. That is why I don't hang out in the forum. Hell some of the forum moderators were doing it to me and others and it was pissing me off. You don't need to put someone down just because you don't agree with their point of view. Get over it. Rather than thinking you need to correct everyone just make your comment. You don't have to be an ahole and yes the fact moderators act like this is the reason I nolonger hang out in the forums here. It pisses me off and I'm sure it does others.  

avatar

GreenTurtle

 Is it hard to be an investor in the company and not be biast? You must break a sweat.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Good work guys/gals... I retract what I said. I had no idea it was this deep. Thanks for the news.. But really do you really need to call people hacks? It's a lovely magazine and this is a blog page. It's not the magazine. People were hired to troll the internet a few months back and make blog entries based on what they could find. There was no experience necessary. They just had to be able to do the job. So I wouldn't pick on people here. A correction like what you made is fine but making personal attacks is too much.. But as I said excellent job and thank you for giving us and me the full story. 

avatar

Steve Jmontim

“I don't even know if they have contributed anything
substantial recently.”

 

“Memory standards are just that standards. Rambus is suing
over names for crying out loud.”

 

“It's gone way too far, I know a couple people that hold
patents and they dont' go sue happy over people using their ideas / patents ,
they just collect royalties.”

 

Well those comments pretty well sum up your apparent
knowledge of what Rambus is, or what Rambus does.  Rambus invented HOW to make synchronous DRAM
work.  In fact, at a time when
asynchronous DRAM was considered BLAZING FAST at 33Mhz, Rambus demonstrated
DRAM running at 500Mhz, yes 10 times as fast. 
Of course, they were told by the memory manufacturers that it would
never work, while behind Rambus’ back Willie Meyer and others work making the “some
day all computers will be built like this” comment that you can read in the
post below.

 

Rambus joined JEDEC at the invitation of the memory
manufacturers, during a time when the SDRAM standard was being developed.  Rambus asked, but was denied the opportunity
to present their technology to JEDEC for standardization on at least two occasions.
Some of the manufacturers reviewed Rambus’ issued patents, and Rambus’ European
patent and wrote that Rambus could, and probably would file additional patents
and claims that would cover SDRAM. 

 

Rambus left JEDEC in 1996 BEFORE any work started on DDR,
yet somehow the JEDEC standard wound up including Rambus’ dual clocking technology,
and the use of other Rambus ideas like programmable latency, etc. JEDEC even
admitted in writing that the DDR design work wasn;t going well, so they had
taken the work of Rambus and others and called it their own.  I’m not making this up, you can read it in
the FTC’s intial decision.

 

Rambus received other patents in 1999, and asked for
royalties.  The manufacturers chose to
sue Rambus instead.  Yes, that’s right,
the manufacturers started this 8 year legal saga.  At the FTC trial we learned that Rambus was
asking for a royalty rate that was less than the cost of the work arounds, and
less than the range of royalties that the manufacturers were paying to Texas
Instruments and others for the use of their patents.

 

You probably know that DDR2 development started around then,
but you may not know that the manufacturers chose to take even more Rambus
technology for use in DDR2, such as on-die terminantion, and now for DDR3 they
are trying to take Flex-Phase (which allows the circuit board manufacturer to
not have to worry about trace lengths). 
All willingly in the face of Rambus’ request for royalties.

 

Simply put, Rambus has been inventing the cutting edge of
circuit interface technology for the last 18 years, but certain companies have
been unwilling to pay for it, instead using their might to control memory
prices, and try to drive Rambus out of business. 

 

Simply put, two guys had a better idea for making memory
work at today’s computer speeds, and they figured it out years ago.  Rambus is no different than the R&D
department of any of the memory manufacturers; the only difference is that
instead of producing their designs, they sell them to other companies.  Micron’s R&D department comes up with
designs that they sell as well, but since they need some of Samsung’s and Infineon’s
designs they cross license instead of paying a royalty to each other.  That is what scared the crap out of the
manufacturers; that they would become just foundries with Intel and Rambus
doing all of the design work.

 

Let’s go back to one of the statements you guys made above:

 

“It's gone way too far, I know a couple people that hold
patents and they dont' go sue happy over people using their ideas / patents ,
they just collect royalties.”

 

When you invent great technology, and everyone wants to use
it, but no one wants to pay for it, what do you do? 

 

avatar

jjr66

Mr Lilly,

Before you start reading the company line that the JEDEC cartel has asked you to put forth, please read what Judge Ronald Whyte stated in the injunction hearing regarding Hynix claims (and your repetition ad nauseum along side the main stream hack media) that Rambus was akin to patent trolls:

from the official court transcript dated 6-24-2008 from Judge Ronald Whyte (THE pre-eminent patent jurist in the country):Judge Whyte says:"AND WITH RESPECT TO THE PERMANENT
INJUNCTION ISSUE, IN SOME WAYS IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
RAMBUS IS NOT A MANUFACTURER OF THE DRAMS, BUT IT'S
CERTAINLY NOT IN THE POSITION OF THE INFAMOUS
TROLLS. THERE'S NO WAY, IN MY VIEW, THAT RAMBUS
FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY.Now run along and come up with some other "pithy" comment, but please do not try to run the "troll" comment up the flag pole, you are undoubtedly much more clever than that! However, you are also a LAZY hack journalist repeating the company line!

avatar

sabatino

Some evidence from the FTC trial:

  • 513. In an April 1999 email exchange among Micron Vice President Bob Donnelly, Micron DRAM Marketing Manager Jeff Mailoux, and Micron JEDEC representatives Kevin Ryan and Terry Lee, an article was attached describing Samsung s plans to produce as much as forty millon Rambus devices in 1999. (R 1444 at 3). In response, Ryan complained that Samsung had "broken ranks with the other suppliers and sold their soul to the devil." (R 1444 at 1). One of the recipients of the email, Mike Seibert, responded that "(tJhese guys (Rambus) are big trouble for us all. If this thing gets into an oversupply mode with RDRAM things could get really ugly." (RX 1444 at 1). Seibert then asked Micron Vice-President Bob Donnelly if Samsung understood "what the Rambus/Intel biz model wil do to our autonomy?" (RX 1444 at 1). Vice-President Donnelly responded that he had "certainly made the point with the offcers that Intel. . . ultimately could control the DRAM industry." (R 1444 at 1).

 

  • 526. In September 1996, Hyundai executive and SyncLink Consortium chairman Farhad Tabrizi wrote an email that expressed a concern that "the real motive of Intel is to control DRAM manufacturers. . . ." According to Tabrizi, Intel' s actions would give it "control of DRAMs and other CPU makers. We will become a foundry for all Intel activities and Intel would like and desires to do business with us then we may get a small share of their total demand. " (RX 778 at 1). Tabrizi concluded his email stating: "I urge you to please educate others and get their agreement to say 'NO TO RAMBUS AN NO TO INTEL DOMINATION. '"

 

  • 529. At that same meeting, the assembled manufacturers agreed to hold a meeting of DRAM manufacturer executives in Japan in January 1997. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9041). Prior to the meeting, Tabrizi sent an email to other DRAM manufacturers that stated that the "Intel decision to go on a Rambus route was pure political and domination and control over the DRAM suppliers and not technical." (R 802 at 3; Tabrizi, Tr. 9041-42). He then stated: "As I have mentioned many times before, Intel does not make DRAMs, we do. And if all of us put our resources together, we do not have to go on this undesirable path. The path of control and domination by Intel." (R 802 at 3). He urged the DRAM manufacturers to "stick together on this matter. (R 802 at 3; Tabrizi, Tr. 9042-43).

 

  • 533. In February 1998, Jeff Mailloux of Micron wrote an email to Tabrizi stating that Mailloux had spoken to a reporter for an industry publication called EE Times. (RX 1105 at 1). Mailloux stated that "I told him that at any density, and any process that is available in 1999 RDRAM is at least 30% cost adder for Micron " and then encouraged Tabrizi to call the reporter with Hyundai' s views. (RX 1105 at 1).
  • Long version: Jeff Mailloux, a senior Micron executive, subsequently wrote Farhad Tabrizi, his counterpart at Hyundai (now Hynix), stating, "I am tired of Intel or Rambus giving my customers cost estimates, so we called Anthony [Cataldo, author of an article in EE Times] and I talked to him for about an hour and gave him Micron's story on it and encouraged him to call other suppliers. In short I told him that at any density, and any process that is available in 1999, RDRAM is at least 30% cost adder for Micron. Just giving you a heads up and would encourage you to call him and give Hyundai's view on it." The email continued: "Here is what I basically told him, if you forward the article to anybody else, remove this part." After summarizing this conversation, Mailloux concluded his e-mail stating: "Anyhow, please visit me if I end up in jail, but felt it was important and timely enough to get our message out there that 5% is not realistic in our opinion."

 

  • 535. In April 1998, Bert McComas, an industry consultant, gave an exclusive seminar for DRAM manufacturers about Intel's selection of RDRAM. (R 1138 at 1; Tabrizi, Tr. 9061-62). McComas pre-cleared his seminar invitation and list of topics with Tabrizi. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9064). 536. McComas s invitation asked its recipients not to forward the invitation to Rambus or Intel. (R 1138 at 1). 537. During his April 1998 seminar presentation to the DRAM manufacturers, McComas stated that a manufacturer that chose to build RDRAM was making a "guaranteed bad bet for margin enhancement " and he stated that RDRAM deepens the manufacturer s financial dilemma. (RX 1482 at 12 26). As a "possible strateg(y)," McComas suggested that DRAM manufacturers (t)ape out but do not fully productize or cost reduce" the RDRAM device, in an effort to "resist popular deployment" of RDRAM. (R 1482 at 34-35).

 

  • 541. During his presentation at the June 1998 "Executive Summit " McComas suggested that the DRAM manufacturers share their RDRAM production plans to determine whether there would be a demand-supply imbalance. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9073-74).

 

  • 553. Tabrizi admitted at trial that he had told Sang Park, then the President and Chief Operating Officer of Hyundai, that he wanted to "kill" Rambus and force RDRAM from the market. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9105-07). Tabrizi subsequently testified that what he meant by "killing Rambus was really just "Rambus suicide, (with) me watching on the sideline. " (Tabrizi Tr. 9109). In his June 2000 email to Park, Tabrizi stated: " (i)f Intel does not invest in us, I really want to ask you to let me go back to my old mode of RDRAM killing. I think we were very close to achieving our goal until you said we are absolutely committed to this baby." (R 1661 at 2).
avatar

killallinfringers

Between Dram & memory controllers, Rambus inventions are used throughout them & they will get paid for an enormous number of different device types, even cell phones. Every case is being found in favor of Rambus, even those appealed up the ladder.  Why do you think that is?  A way to get around what a criminal memory price fixing cartel calls a patent troll is to invent solutions to problems that don't infringe their patents.  Since the criminal memory cartel CAN NOT do this, they are stuck and must pay. And no amount of complaining or crying by complicit (cough) writers will change that. BooYah! 

avatar

sabatino

"Rambus is not a memory, it is a memory system that includes, controller, bus, interface, protocol and memory. One day all computers will (have to) be built like this, hopefully without royalties going to Rambus." by Willi Meyer of Infineon (then part of Siemens) in 3/1994... where he said the following:

http://rambus.org/legal/menace.pdf

avatar

seat48onthebus

Do any of you have any clue what patent protection means to this country? So what you are saying is Rambus should give away all of their IP.

 Riddle me this:

 Does Samsung, Micron, Hynix, Nanya, Nvdia, IBM, HP, Intel, Microsoft, and the rest GIVE AWAY their IP?

 The first thing you people need to do is learn the truth about the history of this ordeal.

http://rambus.org/

Then you may want to go read all of the major court decisions Rambus has won against the cartel and the FTC. You can start with the FTC's own ALJ Judge McGuire. You should also read what the Court of Appeals had to say. Then you can mosey on over to the CADC and read about the ass whoopin' the FTC received about there "suspect" involvement in trying to destroy a small innovative company like Rambus. Oh yea, check out Judge Whyte and the 3 phase trials he held vs Hynix and remind me who was victorious in all 3 Rambus vs Hynix trials. Judge Whyte even stated "there is no way, in my vies, that Rambus falls into that category" when the cartel tried your silly "patent troll" defense. Judge Whyte also issued a summary judgement of infringement against the cartel (Samsung, Micron, Hynix, Nanya) for the upcoming DDR2 trial in January, but you already knew that didn't you.

 I'll be back later to hear how you justify the stealing of a small US companies patents.

 seat

avatar

GreenTurtle

 Now Rambus is a small US company?

avatar

AppleOunce

The last time I checked Los Altos, CA is in the US. And they hire about 400 people.

avatar

GreenTurtle

 Is it 400 lawyers?

avatar

dadocisout2006

You folks apparently, from your comments, don't understand how technology development and the patent system work.  If Rambus invests money in developing new ways to transfer information between chips so that you guys can enjoy greater virtual reality, and then patents those developments, they are entitiled to collect royalties on those ideas.  Rambus has approached all of those folks, who have encorporated Rambus' patented inventions into their chips, and tried to get them to ante up the royalties.  The chip makers, except for a few who understand ethics, have refused to pay those royalties.  The only recourse left to Rambus in such circumstances is to take it to court.  This refusal plus the expenses in court have cost Rambus a great deal of money which they have a right to recoup.  I have tried to keep this as simple as possible, as it seems that you gamers can't see any further than the distance from your nose to the screen.  You'd still be working with 100MHz if Rambus hadn't come along.

avatar

habuza

If Rambus ( i doubt this could happen ) puts the pc gaming industry in a jam with all this bullshit, they should be nuked. ( Dirty bomb anyone? ) It's gone way too far, I know a couple people that hold patents and they dont' go sue happy over people using their ideas / patents , they just collect royalties. And they went about it amicably.

avatar

AppleOunce

The DRAM makers are already on notice and if your "gaming PC" uses DRAM (and it surely does) then they are on notice.

 

Infineon is already paying Rambus.

 

Hynix has already lost to Rambus.

 

Micron, Nanya and Samsung will lose to Rambus in a trial starting Jan 19th, 2009.

 

This piece is got nothing to do with the legitimacy of Rambus patents. You see Rambus's stock has doubled in the last couple of weeks and some hedge fund that has its panties in a bunch has paid Lilly a couple of bucks to bash Rambus down.

 

MaximumPC as a forum? ROTFLMFAO! Whoever has heard of it!

avatar

GreenTurtle

Funny...... Your posting here.

avatar

AppleOunce

Who aborted you?

avatar

billv

Somehow I really doubt that Rambus wants to put the industry in a jam. But if no one will pay the royalties for your patents then I guess that they have to sue them. Near as I can tell Rambus and nVidia have been "negotiating" for years and it has not gotten anywhere.

Just pay up for gods sake. Then maybe they can concentrate on making boards that don't crash.

avatar

Driversniper108

Like Harold Hughes needs more money to wipe his ass with. Everyone is getting sick of having to go through Rambus to use the same technology that everyone needs to use to advance computer technology as a community. It's money hungry CEOs like this that can't play nice with eachother and make us have to pay out the ass for last years technology. I hope the supreme court breaks them up this time around.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Rambus needs to be put out of buisness. This has gone too far. All Rambus does is sue people and it's just gone too far. Memory standards are just that standards. Rambus is suing over names for crying out loud. This is like MS suing over it's patent of the Page Up and Page Down keys on keyboards other than MS Keyboards. Hopefully MS will never do that but they could because they own the patent on these keys. It's just plain bull crap and has gone on too far. I can't believe that these legal eagles are being aloud to keep this up.

How much does Rambus give the feds to allow them to keep up this lawsuit bull shit. Is it not bothering anyone else besides me?

avatar

AppleOunce

And the last bunch of clowns (Micron, Samsung, Hynix, Elpida) that tried it by fixing DRAM prices (artificially brought down DDR prices and inflated RDRAM prices) got fined to the tune of $800 million - a record fine levied by the Justice Department.

 

Where do all you guys crawl out of?

avatar

winmaster

What about keyboards with the Windows logo on that one key between Ctrl and Alt? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Actually MS has been responsible along with Intel to produce many standards like the windows key. I don't know if there is a lic. requirement or a permission requirment but I do know that all you really need is a letter giving you permission to use someones trademark or copy righted material. Like what George Lucas does for fan films of his Star Wars Franchise. He doesn't make everyone pay a fee. I'm sure MS has the same deal like that. I do know also that MS isn't all that evil. They are pretty good people that are really liberal with their money. Don't forget that. 

avatar

AppleOunce

Rambus giving away their DRAM technology would be akin to that - giving away their lifeblood. On the other hand, anybody would give away something that advertizes their products and drives sales and revenues.

avatar

GreenTurtle

 I agree keith, every time I hear about this company it drives me nuts. I don't even know if they have contributed anything substantial recently.

 More money in lawsuits I guess.

avatar

AppleOunce

To who?

We don't live in a socialist country.

They are required only to contribute to their shareholders.

And they have contributed plenty. Like 2X stock value in 2 weeks.

avatar

GreenTurtle

 Have they contributed anything recently to the industry. Simple question.

So, like I said; more money in lawsuits. Thank-you for proving my point.

avatar

AppleOunce

If they haven't contributed anything, why would the DRAM cartel and NVidia want to steal their technology. Surely would mean that it is the latest and greatest.

 

Now tell me something - are you really as stupid as you seem or do you have to work hard at it? It would be quite a task for anyone with even an IQ of 100.

avatar

nekollx

That almost sounds like Libal agaisnt Rambus...cue the Lawers!

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.