Rambus > Infineon
- Thread starter Actaeon
- Start date
So Rambus gets away with it. Read the dissenting opinion, it will make you sick. Here:
About 2/3 of the way down
Rambus did not, in fact, inform anyone at JEDEC about its pending patent applications by the end of 1992. Instead, Rambus continued to attend JEDEC meetings for three more years, watching the SDRAM standard evolve and then amending its patent applications to try to cover features of the standard. Richard Crisp, Rambus?s JEDEC representative, testified at trial about how ?Rambus was intentionally drafting claims to intentionally cover the JEDEC SDRAMs?:
[Y]ou?ll agree as an initial matter, right, that over the years ?92, ?93, ?94 and ?95 while you were attending meetings, JEDEC meetings for Rambus, at least during a portion of that time you were also working with the Rambus patent lawyers to change the claims in these applications? Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you?ll agree, won?t you, sir, that at least on some occasions you went to a JEDEC meeting and then met with the Rambus patent lawyer? Right?
A. Yes. That?s right.
Q. And you?ll agree, won?t you, that in the meetings you had with Rambus patent lawyers after a JEDEC meeting, that one source of the information for changing the Rambus patent claims was what you had seen at JEDEC with respect to the SDRAM standardization? Right?
A. Yes. That?s right.
* * *
Q. And what you did in those meetings was work on new claims for the Rambus pending patent applications, and your intent was to make them broad enough that they would cover an SDRAM using the features that you had seen at the prior meetings. Isn?t that a fact?
A. In some cases that was true.
The record is replete with additional and specific instances of Rambus employees attending JEDEC meetings, taking notes of what was discussed, identifying instances where Rambus already had claims covering what was discussed, and then seeking claims to cover what they learned at the JEDEC meetings. Yet Rambus ?did not tell the people at JEDEC that what they were proposing for standardization infringed [its] patents.? Instead, after considering whether to ?walk into the next JEDEC meeting and simply provide a list of patent numbers which have issued,? Rambus concluded that it was better to remain silent because ?we may not want to make it easy for all to figure out what we have, especially if nothing looks really strong.? Rambus was even advised by its patent attorneys ?to stop attending JEDEC? and that ?if you go to the JEDEC meetings and stay silent and don?t do anything else, you still have a risk that your patents will be unenforceable if you let the standard go forward and you don?t tell them you have patents.? Rambus was explicitly warned in 1992 that ?you cannot mislead JEDEC into thinking that Rambus will not enforce its patent.?
About 2/3 of the way down
Rambus did not, in fact, inform anyone at JEDEC about its pending patent applications by the end of 1992. Instead, Rambus continued to attend JEDEC meetings for three more years, watching the SDRAM standard evolve and then amending its patent applications to try to cover features of the standard. Richard Crisp, Rambus?s JEDEC representative, testified at trial about how ?Rambus was intentionally drafting claims to intentionally cover the JEDEC SDRAMs?:
[Y]ou?ll agree as an initial matter, right, that over the years ?92, ?93, ?94 and ?95 while you were attending meetings, JEDEC meetings for Rambus, at least during a portion of that time you were also working with the Rambus patent lawyers to change the claims in these applications? Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you?ll agree, won?t you, sir, that at least on some occasions you went to a JEDEC meeting and then met with the Rambus patent lawyer? Right?
A. Yes. That?s right.
Q. And you?ll agree, won?t you, that in the meetings you had with Rambus patent lawyers after a JEDEC meeting, that one source of the information for changing the Rambus patent claims was what you had seen at JEDEC with respect to the SDRAM standardization? Right?
A. Yes. That?s right.
* * *
Q. And what you did in those meetings was work on new claims for the Rambus pending patent applications, and your intent was to make them broad enough that they would cover an SDRAM using the features that you had seen at the prior meetings. Isn?t that a fact?
A. In some cases that was true.
The record is replete with additional and specific instances of Rambus employees attending JEDEC meetings, taking notes of what was discussed, identifying instances where Rambus already had claims covering what was discussed, and then seeking claims to cover what they learned at the JEDEC meetings. Yet Rambus ?did not tell the people at JEDEC that what they were proposing for standardization infringed [its] patents.? Instead, after considering whether to ?walk into the next JEDEC meeting and simply provide a list of patent numbers which have issued,? Rambus concluded that it was better to remain silent because ?we may not want to make it easy for all to figure out what we have, especially if nothing looks really strong.? Rambus was even advised by its patent attorneys ?to stop attending JEDEC? and that ?if you go to the JEDEC meetings and stay silent and don?t do anything else, you still have a risk that your patents will be unenforceable if you let the standard go forward and you don?t tell them you have patents.? Rambus was explicitly warned in 1992 that ?you cannot mislead JEDEC into thinking that Rambus will not enforce its patent.?
F'ing crooks and they should all be put away and the company should collaspe....The money they made from extortion of the other membes of jedec should be repayed with penalties and interest. Then the company stock could plummet to .02 cents which the company desreves and get delisted from every stock exchange....
Ahh that would be great!!!
how anyone can buy a product from a known and self professed bunch of liars and cheats is beyond me....Compromise integrity for 5-10% performance against single ddr and equal or less to dual channel ddr...I don't think so!!!
Ahh that would be great!!!
how anyone can buy a product from a known and self professed bunch of liars and cheats is beyond me....Compromise integrity for 5-10% performance against single ddr and equal or less to dual channel ddr...I don't think so!!!
Adul
Elite Member
I can't understand how Rambus can get on the stand and say "yes, we did continually alter our secret patents to cover what was being devised at JEDEC", and not be found guilty.
Took a day later before someone replied.
I would have thought someone would have been interested a little earlier.
I thought it was interesting, IMO Rambus are crooks. And I have no idea how Infineon managed to lose that.
Oh well...
I would have thought someone would have been interested a little earlier.
I thought it was interesting, IMO Rambus are crooks. And I have no idea how Infineon managed to lose that.
Oh well...
It's sort of like a murderer getting off on a technicality. 2 of the 3 appeals judges decided that because Rambus withdrew from JEDEC right before the SDRAM standard was ratified none of their activities up to that point could be used to render their patents void. Totally absurd, since Rambus had been listening in the whole time and amending their secret patents accordingly.
I agree, however it could have something to do with others doing the same. Like was stated Cnet "Even Infineon?s own actions demonstrate that the disclosure duty was not so broad because Infineon itself did not disclose to JEDEC an application on testing SDRAM."
If this is true that other members have violated this bylaw and JEDEC it self did not enforce its own bylaw then this whole trial would cease to exist. Because the basis of it is that Rambus did not disclose that information.
Does this mean that RAM prices are going to jump back up?
Will Rambus become a toll collecting company again?
Can this appeal be appealed?
Will Rambus become a toll collecting company again?
Can this appeal be appealed?
No but if they dont even live up to there own standards they cant hold others responsible for the same. Its like a school techer telling you you that if you come in late to class your market absent, yet everyday that teacher is late themselfs, makes it a bit hard to enforce.
i personally won't buy rdram on account of the business practices. Really annoying they got away with it.
oh and i thought about replying earlier, only i didn't have anything constructive to say.
oh and i thought about replying earlier, only i didn't have anything constructive to say.
I realize RAMBUS will still have a large income, no matter what happens, thanks to Playstation3.
According to specs, Playstation3 will use RAMBUS for its memory.
Due to the fact I would never help this crook company, I will not bother purchasing a PS3.
Ban the Playstation3!
I also believe that the specs Sony is pulling is complete BS. 100x faster than a 2.4ghz Intel P4 by 2005? Yeaaaah right.
Jonathan
According to specs, Playstation3 will use RAMBUS for its memory.
Due to the fact I would never help this crook company, I will not bother purchasing a PS3.
Ban the Playstation3!
I also believe that the specs Sony is pulling is complete BS. 100x faster than a 2.4ghz Intel P4 by 2005? Yeaaaah right.
Jonathan
Uh??? You're joking right? This makes it hard for any company; in this case Infineon to make a valid argument in court when them, themselves broke the rules, any reasonable judge will see this. In fact the judges in the appeals case did and judged accordingly.
I don?t like what Rambus did anymore then you do, however in a case like this no American court will find a defendant guilty when the plaintiff is doing the same.
Originally posted by: Actaeon
I realize RAMBUS will still have a large income, no matter what happens, thanks to Playstation3.
According to specs, Playstation3 will use RAMBUS for its memory.
Due to the fact I would never help this crook company, I will not bother purchasing a PS3.
Ban the Playstation3!
I also believe that the specs Sony is pulling is complete BS. 100x faster than a 2.4ghz Intel P4 by 2005? Yeaaaah right.
Jonathan
Well, that depends on how you count, in many cases the GFX chip on even a cheapo video card will be several orders of magnutude faster than a P4, but that's cause they do that, and only that, while a P4 is a general purpose processor, so it can do pretty much anything(well within reasonable limits
).Anyway, I agree, this sucks, as I've stated many times before, Im not much into hating companies, but Rambus is one of the few exceptions, it's a truly disgusting company.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,834
- 4,404
- 126
The key is that Rambus had valid and legal patents pending BEFORE they joined JEDEC. Patent rights always go by the date they were applied for, not by the date they were accepted. Anything in the patents that was there before they joined JEDEC is 100% morally and legally property of Rambus. The judges have just confirmed that. However any amendments that JEDEC worked on after Rambus joined of course do not belong to Rambus.
Infineon was trying to claim rights to things that Rambus did before Rambus joined JEDEC. How on earth can Infineon get on the stand and demand that?
I think they both ripped each other off at one point or another actually. I also think most ppl are against Rambus because they dont use RDRAM in their computers. Imagine how much the discussions would differ if 85% of the people had RDRAM instead of DDR in their computers.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter