Slashdot Mirror
NEC Signs Rambus Royalty Agreement
Zarquon writes: "NEC has agreed to pay licensing fees and royalties to Rambus for production of SDRAM, according to this TechWeb article. They're the fourth company to give in to Rambus; Hitachi, Toshiba, and Oki have already been signed to similar agreements. If you're unfamiliar with the Rambus patent fiasco, LostCircuits has a good synopsis of the situation." Ah, yes -- beat them in the courtroom, not the marketplace.
Nononono. Your thinking Trademark Law.
-- dieman - Scott Dier
Microsoft:
* used anti-competitive licensing terms
* disallowed customers from using other products
* forced customers to accept terms that were harmful to them
* broke previous rulings regulating their behaviour
Rambus:
* patented a bunch of ideas that are generally regarded as not being particularly original
* demanded license fees from RAM manufacturers
* got what they asked for
* will need to defend the validity of their patents in court against Micron's claims
* may ultimately lose ownership of the patents and have to give the money back
The point is that Rambus hasn't broken any laws, while Microsoft has. One has to approve of lawbreakers ending up in court.
Sure, Hemos is still out to lunch: Rambus isn't using the courts at all to get what they want. Micron is. And because the case hasn't even made it to the courtroom, you can't say Rambus is winning in the courtroom.
Different beasts, Microsoft and Rambus. One has a viable product, thumped the marketplace, and engaged in anticompetitive practices. The other has no viable product, got thumped in the marketplace, and is engaged in dubious patent licensing.
With any luck, both will receive a comeuppance.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
We all know it certainly had nothing to do with the fact that Netscape's browser did indeed sucketh hard, right?
Compared to the other browsers at the time? You must be kidding, right?
Even MS admits that their own browsers didn't hold a candle to Netscape until version 4+. Nobody chose IE3 over NN3 when given a choice. I'm still amazed when I load an NT4 system (which has IE3 by default) just how bad that browser was.
Saying that 4 years after the fact MS managed to ship a superior browser (IE5) is hardly a ringing endorsement of their technology, considering by that point their only competitor had been devalued so much that they had to sell themselves to stay in business.
Netscape knew that their dreck would never win in the marketplace, so they sued.
I don't recall NS ever suing MS.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Of course! If your product performs inferior to other types in its class, just pressure them legally to only manufacture your product! This is really pathetic; now Rambus is the true weasel of the RAM market. And the only things stopping them are Intel's bending loyalty to Rambus (soon to break, I hope), the Athlon's performance with DDR, third party chipset makers planning DDR chipsets for the P3 and P4 (once again, I hope), and the opposition of us gamers and hackers.
I say resist the ill wind of Rambus! But please, don't flame, use evidence!
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Well if you're going to point fingers at least get a handle instead of anonymous coward. It is tenuous to claim that JEDEC negates a company's rights to hundreds of their own patents. Rambus design RAM, and that's all, for them to give up rights on their I.P puts them out of business instantly. You're really claiming that's what they did?
As I've already said, it's not about the patents in the press releases. When they roll the big guns into the negotiations it's game over, no counter infringement claims and a portfolio that would sink a battleship, that's the harsh reality here. This JEDEC thing is a smoke screen to cover the fact that Micron is buck naked. Their only defence is a blanket claim (and get this) that Rambus has no rights to their own inventions.
You're perception here is that I'm unsympathetic. I'm not, but the consistent Alice in Wonderland approach to the real world, (as opposed to the world of geek opinion) is beyond a joke.
/.ters.
Contrarian views and real insight is ignored here and farcical inflammatory and misinformed nonsense rises to the surface.
This is a forum about opinion important or not, my opinion provoked a response from you so in your little corner of the world my opinion seems to matter more than most. I'm not trying to influence the system, you are. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the crap posted here is plain wrong and offer an alternative view of what's happening in the real world as opposed to the wet dreams of
Just a few reminders:
This is the situation. Fair and Square. You either go RamBUST or you lose your share of the PC market. By either selling unpopular non-branded non-Intel PCs or having to pay more for CPUs from Intel or not having them available.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
This is for all you posters who are coming in defense of Rambus. Please PLEASE read the @#! article before making generalized comments. And these articles are being modded up. Yeash.
1. Rambus joined JEDEC, a consortium of companies devoted to sharing R&D work and forming industry standards to keep costs down for everyone
2. Rambus files for patents after joining the JEDEC, without disclosing the fact. These patents go directly against the industry standards the JEDEC is trying to establish.
3. Rambus is now using this information learned at meetings to "extend and prosecute pending applications to target the latest industry standards proposed in these meetings."
Rambus, while doing nothing illegal, acted in a very misleading way. It sat at these JEDEC meetings, when in fact it had conflicting interests which are now being used to undermine the whole market and open standards.
The reason there is anti-trust legislation in the first place is that is next to impossible to beat a monopoly in the marketplace. Rambus does not have a monopoly,
yet.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Help us, Micron-Kenobi, you're our only hope!
[Note to the unfamiliar, Micron filed suit against Rambus for anti competitive practices and invalid patents. Live by the sword, die by the sword...]
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
That being said, the comment "beat 'em in the courtroom, not in the market" is uncalled for. These laws are often abused, but they do have a valid purpose -- if someone makes money froms something you invent, you deserve to get a piece of the action. The patent laws are designed to ensure this.
I don't know all the details of RAMBUS' claim, but if they were granted a reasonable and valid patent, then a whole lot of very smart lawyers are settling for a reason: RAMBUS just might be in the right here.
--
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
I'm glad to see that Slashdot is upholding its proud tradition of double standards.
And before you moderate this post as Troll or Flamebait, keep in mind what I'm trying to say. I'm making a relevant comment on the story headline. The point behind the story is that Rambus is winning in the courtroom, not the marketplace. However, that by itself is not necessarily a bad thing, because alternate OS advocates (i.e. 99% of Slashdot readers) are hoping to use that same courtroom to even out the marketplace for operating systems.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I know there are some sketchy things in the background about Rambus and some organization of RAM manufacturer's - but no one in the group was a consumer, everyone had their own big lawyers. Maybe this makes Rambus a little evil, but it was only possible because the other manufacturer's either had bad lawyers, or tried to get away with something.
As for now, Rambus owns the technology, they don't seem to be in violation of their contracts (or they'd be losing, not winning) and they should have a right to do as they please. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE MAKE NEW STUFF!
I'm extremely happy Rambus isn't pursuing the SDRAM market (and they don't sound like they will, but maybe they'll change their tune) and instead only the DDRDRAM market. At least you CAN still buy a decent computer cheaply, and they're apparently not even making the DDRDRAM licensing rates terribly ridiculous, or those companies wouldn't be settling so easily.
Also, they don't seem to be trying to drag out court cases or interfere with technology very much - they're getting a licensing fee for something they own (either through tech or better lawyers) and letting people continue making it and it's STILL going to be a lot cheaper than RDRAM
That said, don't buy RDRAM, it's completely not worth it and ridiculously expensive. And I completely think Intel should drop RDRAM, etc. And if Rambus ends up only being able to collect their licensing fees and RDRAM dies, I'd be happy.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
I wonder how all these settlements are going to affect prices of SDRAM... If I were Rambus, besides expecting to spend an eternity in a lake of fire, I'd charge royalties high enough to inflate the price of SDRAM in order to make the price of RDRAM artificially competitive.
I really really hope Micron can win this one and put RAMBUS in its place. Either that or we'll see ppl talking about boycotting memory purchases the way it was talked about when ASUS announced "cheating drivers" for 3d games.
BOSTON SUCKS!
Microsoft:
*manipulated the system every which way but loose in order to increase their advantage.
Rambus:
*is attempting to manipulate the system every which way but loose in order to increase their advantage.
Rambus isn't using the courts at all to get what they want.
Pay us for using a technique that
a) you told us about and then we patented
b) we tricked you into putting into the standard
c) we were applying for a patent on before you put it into the standard, we knew you were considering it (because, we suggest that you consider it), but we chose not to tell you about our application even though we agreed that we would tell you about the application
or
we'll sue you and get US courts to have US Customs agents confiscate everything you ship to the US, and generally have you locked out of one of the largest markets on this planet. How is this not using the court system again?
Being from the Orient, do I pay up, or take my chances in a foreign court?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
So add NEC to the list of Toshiba, Hitachi and Oki of cowards who have no interest in protecting their customers from rapacious IP firms.
I for one will not be buying _ANY_ of their memory products. Why should I support them if they won't support me?
Yes, and the browser integration didn't begin until version 4, which was better than Netscape's 4.x products. They didn't integrate 3.x and earlier
And it began with v4 because, in MS's own words -- the version 4 browsers were a wash. Neither had any superiority, and they had to tie theirs to the OS and use exclusive contracts to get anyone to change from NS (since there was no technical reason to do so).
Actually, a bunch of people did
Well, a "bunch" of people weren't very important in the marketplace. let me rephrase -- only a significant minority of the market chose/used it.
Umm, NT4 had IE2, which nobody used except for downloading IE 3 and above or Netscape 2 and above. Maybe you got 'em confused and that's why you thought nobody used IE3?
No, I was thinking of Win95 which came with IE3.0 (or was that OEMSR2?). NT with IE2/Mosaic is a truly frightening sight, though.
The fact that they have the best browser by far is a ringing endorsement of their technology
The fact that you achieved "best" with no competition (ie, "best of one") is hardly bragging rights.
What difference does it make how long it took? It didn't take 4 years anyway, seeing as IE4 was already better than Netscape 4, despite Netscape's huge headstart.
IE4 and NN4 were about even -- MS said so themselves in their arguments for bundling. There was no real superiority either way. It wasn't until 5.0 that you could say IE was demonstrably "better" in a technical sense (and it still has quirks NN doesn't have). Of course, NN5 didn't come out because the company had no resources to keep fighting the battle. "We can do better R&D than a bankrupt company!" Quite a slogan, that.
Just how had Netscape been "devalued so much" when IE4 first came out? What is it that caused them to release such a shoddy product? Keep in mind that Netscape 4 came out much earlier than IE4 and its integration into Windows
Netscape hadn't been devalued when IE4 came out -- it was the act of windows (and office) requiring IE4 that devalued the company. Once that happened, investors saw the writing on the wall (and rightly so) that NS would lose, simply because it's unrealistic to expect/demand that users have multiple browsers. If you have one without any choice, few people want to complicate their lives by adding another.
Technical merits had nothing to do with it (in the 4.0 generation), as MS readily admits -- the reviews were even and their own research showed people unwilling to change for little if any benefit. The only way to force their users to change was, well, to FORCE their users to change.
Oh wait, you really thought that the DoJ was suing on behalf of the American people? LOL! That's cute.
Thanks, I think it's cute how everyone thinks it must be a piece of cake to get a federal criminal antitrust lawsuit started. Just takes a phone call from some disgruntled competitor, right? Maybe a few bucks in donations? Right -- the DOJ felt like going up against the most valuable company in the world as a favor to a company that was going bankrupt. Good career move, no doubt, considering MS would be around to give donations a lot longer than NS.
But please, continue your conspiracy theories. I'm sure it was coincidental that the DOJ had consent decrees with MS before Netscape was ever founded. The fact that the DOJ, Japan, most of Europe, and the FTC all had investigations into MS must have just been a clever setup, because they knew that someday the WWW would be invented and a company would need their help. No problem.
Why do you think it was that one of the proposed settlements of U.S. vs. MS was that Microsoft would have to bundle Netscape with Windows?
Uh, because they were the one company that could show a measurable damage? Of course, it wasn't to bundle NN, it was to offer it as a choice on the CD, but regardless it was a pretty lame idea. And the other browsers weren't explicitly in the offer because the other browsers had never been "market competitors". It's the same reason you can't get matching funds from the Federal Election Commission unless you have a certain level of support. Not every nutball who makes a browser has a realistic chance of it being a viable competitor, but if Opera were ever to garner 15% market share then they'd have to be included in the deal, too.
Opera decided they wanted to make their money based on the quality of their engineers, not the quality of their lawyers.
Well when MS starts making decisions based on the quality of tech, I'll be the first to sing Kumbaya with you, Zico.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
It's just amazing how this slashdot article was worded and the comments it has provoked. There seems to be a real issue with slashdot's perception of intellectual property right.
This isn't an attempt by Rambus to win in court instead of the market. Rambus IS an intellectual property company. The filed patents on DDR years ago. They own this I.P. and this is what their ENTIRE business model is based on. They pay hundreds of engineers to sit around all day and design memory technology, they file patents then they license it. They do not make ANY memory. If that's what you do then your entire revenue stream is going to come from your ideas, and your ability to collect royalties from them.
Now I don't disagree that the patent system is screwed up, especially as it relates to software and companies building roadblocks, but that ain't the fault of Rambus.
It's Micron who are trying to sue Rambus and win in court instead of the market. They are hoping to cheat them out of the royalties they are due, as if Micron didn't benefit from their own Licenses. It would be unprecedented if Micron won in court over this. They are basically saying Rambus has no right to wholesale technology they invented. Micron are dreaming if they think it's going to work.
I don't think folks watching this realize the sheer volume of patents Rambus is garnering or what's going on behind the scenes, the Patents under discussion now were actually filed years ago. It's easy to say something was obvious or not original years after the fact. What the major RAM makers need to worry about is the other patents Rambus throws on the table when negotiations start. They might go into a case thinking they are on solid ground but when Rambus throws their entire patent portfolio into the ring, and in addition the RAM maker realizes that Rambus makes *NO* RAM and cannot therefore be sued for breach of their own I.P. they realize in short order that they are screwed if they take it to a trial. This is what you are seeing and why everyone is caving. Micron is in deep trouble here.
Seems the most expedient course for a company now that a couple of rivals are getting down into the suit thing; in the meantime, NEC doesn't have to tie up resources. If Rambus wins the suits, NEC's tushies are covered, and if Rambus loses, it's toast anyway by the New Rule Of Business, which requires either R&D or lawyers.
(if !(tech) & !(legal); then Corp.dead).
I really liked this one, though:
Universal Translator:
"NEC flinched when we showed them the lawsuit we drew up featuring their name."
Ignoring any issues related to the Rambus patent case, is there anyone here who thinks RDRAM is (or will be) the techologically superior solution?
Y'know, you'd think that - but everytime I think RAMBUS has died - another story pops up about it...
They must be throwing some big cash bundles at the marketting and legal team to keep the issue alive...
BlackNova Traders
Please. It's not a double standard. It's pretty clear that microsoft has broken certain laws, the courts can decide which ones and the penalties.
On the other side we have rambus, which has proven to be inferior in not only price/performance, but in performance as well. There is also a good amount of evidence that their patents are going to be hard to hold up.
Given the situations of both cases, I don't find this to be a double standard.
Look, if RAMBUS wants to get any company to sign because it needs the publicity, it can. Just offer good terms. IIRC industry standard royalties are 2%, they wanted more. The companies are smart to sign because they save legal costs, especially if they can get a Most Favored Licencee rate.
But you can bet that those contracts have the standard escape clause: "if patents are found invalid, agreement void and royalties refunded".
Sadly, I fear you are mistaken.
:)
You see, RAMBUS are not only claiming patents on Rambus memory, but they are ALSO claiming patents and royalties on ALL memory - SDRAM, DDR-RAM etc!
So even if no-one buys Rambus RAM, if Rambus get their way they will still received billions in royalties from everyone else.
This truely sucks.
Micron, however, are not bending over (unlike all Far Eastern memory manufacturers) - Go Micron!
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Where would you expect to have this issue resolved, in the standards meetings? Do you believe your competitors (competitors who want to win business from you) would do anything but thank you for handing them the technology you developed?
They began discussing the design in the last six months that Rambus was attending the meetings. Does anyone here really believe that Rambus was able to go from concept to production, based only on a set of meetings in six months?
Did they take advantage of the information and a hole in the agreement. Looks like it. And it appears to be a quite a hole since they are winning.
Will it inflate the price of chips? I am sure we will hear it does. Much like the gas prices skyrocket the day after an oil price increase is announced. $.02 seems to go to $.10 in no time.
This presents a whole new range of phrases:
"Oh man, they just got the rambus!"
"We're gonna rambus those fools, and if they don't like it, they can suck my rambus."
"Put your rambus in the air, and wave it like you just don't care!"
Ok, that last one may take some time to catch on.