>ahem< RAMBUS news links for an objective assessment required

[Rigoletto]

Yap yap RAMBUS. Would those who know them post links to news on these patents issues and RAMBUS history please?
Any lawyers that would like to tell the forum the legal situation?

I happen to think that if legally they are clear cut in taking royalties, then it's natural and proper that they should. But if they are doing the equivalent of trying to patent the hyperlink like British Telecom (I kid you not) in order to extort from companies then that is more of a swindle.

 

[KarlHungus]

Go to The Register and do a search on Rambus.

 

[Windogg]

Trust me, it a swindle.

Windogg

 

[Rigoletto]

I have looked at the Register and it gives one the impression that RAMBUS is justified. I mean, if they own 4 patents to SDRAM technology, then they own 4 patents. I don't think Hitachi et al capitulated for nothing. What I wonder about is whether they just patented what should be an obvious idea which would be simultaneously realised by other techs. After all, RAMBUS never actually made their own chips, did they? But if patent law says they own rights, then tough titty even if patent law is out of touch with the computer world.

 

[Mark R]

This issue has been done to death on this board - use the search function and you should find a huge amount of discussion. Anyhow, this is a quick synopsis:

In 1990, Rambus filed a patent application for a type of memory device - at this stage it was simply an application and there was little technical detail.

Slightly later, Rambus joins the JEDEC committee for the development of SDRAM memory. The idea of this group was to build an open standard which could be freely used by any interested party. Against JEDEC's rules of membership, they do not declare their pending patent application.

Over the next 3-4 years, Rambus attends regular meetings with the other members of the JEDEC committee. At several points during this period, they add to or change technical information in their original patent applications, in flagrant breach of JEDEC's rules prohibiting the patenting of technologies discussed during the meetings. The net result of these changes is to bring their patents more into line with the emerging SDRAM standard.

In 1996, Rambus resigns from JEDEC.

In 1999, Rambus' original patent application is granted.

 

[Rigoletto]

JEDEC were casual and stupid. They didn't keep minutes of their meetings or proper membership and attendance records. RAMBUS didn't have anything that would legally bind them to JEDEC therefore. They weren't even a signed up member.
RAMBUS were just sharp cookies and you guys don't like the idea of someone increasing the prices on the technology you covet. And who said you must buy RDRAM solutions anyway?
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&amp;action=m&amp;board=4687909&amp;tid=rmbs&amp;sid=4687909&amp;mid=154115

 

[rmblam]

We won't buy RDRAM.

It's the fact that unknowing people might have been forced to buy the crap as if RDRAM were any good in the first place. We have watched INTEL waffle over incorporating it into their systems where they would benefit largely financially from adopting it. Why are they waffling? Because the product is sub par and it is not cost effective.

Now that INTEL seems to be shying away from RDRAM Rambut is simply covering it's @SS financially by tryng to extort from the future successes of DDR.

It is said that the market should and WILL decide the future of RDRAM and DDR. Since RDRAM cannot beat the more cost effective solution known as DDR SDRAM in performance, then they are trying to level the playing field by forcing the price of DDR up through royalties.

Note: this simply my opinion.
I don't know about you, but I don't care for some pimp with a broken down whore trying to steal my baby and make more money. It's just not cool.

 

[HayZeus 2000]

<< JEDEC were casual and stupid. They didn't keep minutes of their meetings or proper membership and attendance records. RAMBUS didn't have anything that would legally bind them to JEDEC therefore. They weren't even a signed up member. >>



Your objectivity speaks for itself.

 

[fkloster]

I feel that intellectual property was stolen from rambus. How it affects our pocketbooks should not alter justice.

 

[*kjm]

Rigoletto read this info about RAMBUS.

LostCircuits

 

[HayZeus 2000]

<< How it affects our pocketbooks should not alter justice. >>



Indeed, although I think the courts have a different interpretation of justice than you. FTC v. Dell anyone?

Edit: Typo

 

[dszd0g]

Actually, I am pretty sure BT did invent the equivalent of the hyperlink back in the days of dumb terminals. Their patent isn't exactly for a hyperlink, but it is for the equivalent. They did invent it about 15 years ago or so (I don't remember the exact year). The British patent office sat on it for years and they just got their patent like last year. It just illustrates the stupidity of long lasting software patents at all. The idea of a text linking was quite new when they invented it how ever many years ago that was. They just should have had a patent on it for maybe a year after that. Not now when its become something used industry wide.

 

[Rigoletto]

Thankyou *kjm.

My understanding of the article is that RAMBUS were attending JEDEC meetings and scribbling down things under the table, and appending the technical information they gleaned there to a much earlier patent, as if it could be their own property due to the flawed way the patent system works.
So if this is so true, then how can they have such a powerful case that large chip manufacturers crumble to them? Surely if it were all so supported by evidence then an anti trust case or whatever should make mincemeat of them. But it hasn't has it?
I have to say I respect these shenanigans from RAMBUS more than their technology. It's the kind of stunt I would pull actually...
(This from the guy who paid no attention to physics A level, stayed up all night to learn the course before finals, thought &quot;oh this subject wasn't so hard after all&quot; loaded up his calculator with equations like the cheater he is and got an N for numbskull. But I still believe cheats prosper. Somewhere.)

 

[dszd0g]

I did some research. BT patent is from 1976. They are using a film from 1968 at Stanford that shows the first mouse clicking on text to refute the patent. It appears they did not invent it, or if they did they filed the patent too late.