Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Caves To Rambus Royalties
denominateur writes: "According to this story, Rambus now made a licensing agreement with memory market leader Samsung that will allow Rambus to collect royalties on virtually all the computer memory produced by the market leader. Who will stop Rambus from getting more and more money on patents that basically don't make ANY sense?" Well, evidently, Micron and the two other companies fighting the Rambus patents in court seem like possibilities. I wonder what happens to those royalty deals, though, if the company goes Rambust ...
Well, no, not really. Any country doing this would start to find it hard to trade with western developed economies. China's entry to the WTO was strictly conditional on the government closing down pirate CD factories, for instance. And those CDs were just for domestic consumption, not for export.
You are right, however, that IP law in its current incarnation forces a gross distortion of the free market.
--
"We think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to develop a competing technology to RDRAM and not infringe on our patents," he said. "We are extremely confident in our legal position."
:-)
Yeah - but what about when a country with low labour costs and not much care for patent law starts producing cheap clones for not-much money. Say, China, f'rinstance. Then they'd be stuffed. By the free market no less. How positively ironic.
The point is that the company has been artificially propped up in stature and prominence for a long time and these supports are slowly being removed one by one. But it's taking a long time.
Intel has gone sour with RMBS and according to the public portions of the contract they signed with them all they have to do to cancel their commitments to promoting RDRAM with their new systems is write a letter terminating the contract. Why hasn't this been done then you ask? There are portions of the contract that are blacked out and the speculation is that RMBS has Intel by the balls on some IP issue that no one is talking about. Though that's just a good theory at this point.
At any rate, even if RMBS manages to collect royalties on SDRAM and DDR-RAM and it still looks to me like Micron et al have a strong case on the whole RMBS breaking the JEDEC agreement and patenting jointly developed technology.
Intel put together a group called the Advanced DRAM Technology (ADT) to develop a future RAM standard slated for 2003 and they didn't invite RMBS to the table. Regardless of whether RMBS has any claim on the patents that cover SDRAM and DDR, it's obvious that the rest of the industry (regardless of Samsung's licensing deal they are also working on the RMBS free standard) will be working very hard to bypass RMBS royalties as soon as possible.
Even if RDRAM was viable on the desktop (it's not, as others have pointed out), it's gettign to the point where associating with RMBS is bad public relations. Doesn't it make you feel sick to think that your new PS2 purchase has contributed to the financial health of these leaches?
There is a great article about this at Tom's Hardware from back in July. It makes some long-range predictions, many of which are now being played out nicely. The whole article and, actually, all of the Rambus coverage on Tom's is excellent. Hey while I was there looking for the link I found this new bit about the Samsung deal which totally jives with what I just wrote and also points out that many analysts beleive RMBS gave Samsung major concessions to stage a well-timed deal and that Samsung is possibly avoiding legal costs while waiting for Micron et al to take RMBS to court. It's also woth noting that Samsung has been one of RMBSs biggest allies for a long time.
Metamuscle.com - News in the Iro
Actually, I recall that a couple of Harvard (not certain about the school though)law students patented the wheel a few years ago when they found that there was no existing patent on it. They got in the newspapers at the time, but they never got any royalties, nor did they expect to. They just wanted to see if they could do it.
:P (Karma-trolling)
Now, slightly back OT: Patents are, IIRC, awarded to "first-to-apply" which means if you beat RAMBUS (or anyone else) to applying for a patent, then you are initially awarded that patent. However, there is a system set up for "stink-patenting" which is patenting anything under the sun. I believe you have to prove that were working on the development before you are finally awarded the patent.
Now, I view what RAMBUS is doing as wrong. Corporation-wise, it's incredibly intelligent and expected, because if you don't defend your patents, you can lose them. So I expect them to do so. What irks me is the arrogance of the situation. They can't believe that anyone can come up with something in the arena that won't infringe on their patents. I am so hoping that someone finds a way around this and gives RAMBUS the finger.
Oh yeah, Amazon is evil too...
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
When I say that something is bad, I recognize that it has some good aspects. I'll give a couple of personal examples on how the lack of a patent stifled innovation.
Back in the early 1980's I made a trivial invention: a comb which wouldn't create static in your hair when you used it. It was a very simple invention; all you have to do is add a little conductive material such as graphite to the plastic in its molten state and the comb no longer will generate static.
I applied for a patent and took the invention to one of the major comb manufacturers in the states. They were very happy to see me and excited about the prospect of being able to get an exclusive license on the 'technology'; they could see that being able to advertise a "static free" comb would create a competitive advantage for them.
However, the patent office rejected my application (the interfering invention was a comb in a xerox copier - designed to drain off static charge from paper.) When this happened the comb manufacturer lost interest. What they said is that without a patent they would have no competitive advantage - as soon as they came out with their anti-static comb so would everyone else - so they weren't interested in producing the combs. While they might be an advantage to consumers they would be no advantage to the manufacturers without a patent, and to this day they don't exist in the marketplace.
The second example comes from a somewhat more advanced invention: a differential microphone which cancels out feedback problems in live music. The mic works by having to microphone elements wired in reverse phase - one closer to the mouth than the other. Feedback from a speaker is rejected as common mode noise while the voice comes through as a differential signal. NASA has this patented as an external noise cancellation microphone for space capsule use. However the same setup can be used for PA or live music and cancel out most feedback. The results are dramatic: minus feedback, microphone speaker combinations produce much less 'mechanical' sounds; the voice from the speaker sounds very lifelike.
I decided to forgo getting a patent; my earlier experience had cost me a lot of money and I wanted to do the right thing: I released the invention to a major microphone manufacturer - > placing it in the public domain . The results were the same as the comb: no patent - no manufacturer interest. Now 15 years later no one has seen a differential microphone on the market place because the manufacturers would not benefit from its existence - even though the public would.
I hope from these two examples that everyone will be able to see that as long as we live in a world with competing manufacturers of commercial products - that a lack of a patent can and does stifle effective innovation.
That's not how I read it. "Difficult, if not impossible, to develop a competing technology to RDRAM and not infringe on our patents"... That means the challenge is for someone else to develop an equal or better technology independently. The patent system is doing exactly what it's supposed to, providing protection to the company that originated the best ideas. It's up to their competitors to produce a better mousetrap, not cry foul because Rambus isn't sharing.
Of course, whether or not those patents are excessively broad, and thus making it functionally impossible to develop any competing technology, is a discussion for another thread.
Your perception problem seems to be just a matter of lack of recent information.
First, RDRAM has already blown over. Last week Intel publicly admited that RDRAM and their involvment with Rambus was a huge mistake. Even though the announcment tacitly admited that the mistake leaves the company in a very precarious position there stock went UP after the announcement.
It also became clear as Intel announced future road maps that if they remain bound by the Rambus contract they will find a way to remain true to the LETTER of the contract, while in FACT supporting SDRAM. This will make Intel motherboards a bit more expensive and provide a useless slot, but it would get them off the Rambus hook.
Itel THIS week formally requested Rambus to void their contract.
RDRAM has blown over already. It's dead. A done deal.
BUT:
Rambus is claiming that they own patents on ALL computer memory and that from now on everyone owes them money on ANY memory products, including the SDRAM we've all been using for years without having to pay them a dime.
RDRAM may be dead, but Rambus is a group of rapacious IP lawyers going out for a kill no matter what they have to do to do it, even if it means making enemies of every single human being on the planet and off of it.
They don't care, they just want the money.
Now, I view what RAMBUS is doing as wrong. Corporation-wise, it's incredibly intelligent and expected, because if you don't defend your patents, you can lose them. So I expect them to do so.
I don't know why everybody gets all the IP mixed up. You can pick and choose your fights with patents. You don't have to defend against every patent violation if you don't want to. What you're thinking of are Trademarks. Big difference between the two!
blah blah blah....
Actually, I heard that they stole these ideas. And, for your information, the patent system is supposed to provide protection for inventors, not companies. It fails utterly at that.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Patents do not push for innovation, not even in the long run, when used to block development. It is not in the interest of the patent holder that competing technology is developed, with or without the use of their patents. Patent holders like rambus who attempt to push patented technology into standard boards against agreements want the control to block development, relying on the long time to market for the products to milk what they can out of everyone complying with standards.
Companies will pay royalties if they can easily pass the cost along to the consumer and dont have to go through the bother of getting the patent overturned. In this case Samsung and others play nice with Rambus while letting Micron do the dirty work.
If I worked at Rambus I'd watch my back tho... Some memory manufacturers might pretend to be friendly but they'd love to see rambus dead and gone.
Everyone knows the process by which your invention is created. Which means that they can try to take the next step, by improving that invention.
Sure, if we all want to wait 20 years for that next step to be taken. That's the problem with patents now. The term length is archaic. If a corporation doesn't have a strategy to make a profit from some tech within a 3-5 years, they don't create it. Period. Allowing them to block further innovation for 20 years does nothing to help increase innovation. This is especially obvious in the computer industry.
Then there's the issue of theory versus reality in the granting of patents. Theoretically patents are only given for non-obvious, non-trivial inventions. I think we now know that that's the biggest load of crap you'll ever hear. The patent office is aggressively trying to give out patents for any damn thing you care to submit to them. Then people have to go to the expense to try and overturn the patent, which rarely happens because the patent holders know not to charge too much. Therefore a corporation has to look at its bottom line which tells it that it's cheaper to just pay the royalties rather than spend the cash it will take to overturn the patent (and then do the same with all the others?). So we basically now have tons of patents out there being used as legal extortion, doing nothing to increase innovation, but simply leaching off of a prosperous economy.
So, you see, combine very long patent term lengths with overly broad and ridiculous patents and you have a very effective barrier to innovation. Now, I don't disagree with patents in theory, but too many people seem to think that the theory is the same as the reality. That's about as far from the truth as you can get.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It'd take a lot of money to buy significant voting shares, and a lot of trouble to actually go down and pester them. Nobody is actually spending millions of dollars protesting, boycotting, etc. The money isn't there.
Even if you could scrape it up, it'd all be going into the pockets of earlier investors; the people who supported this crap in the first place. Now they have been rewarded.
What a precedent! "Do something evil, we'll buy your stock!"
No, I think the correct methods are indeed market pressure, legal support, and political lobbying.
--------
If you've ever heard Bowie's "Young Americans" you've heard exactly this. It wasn't meant as feedback control- it was meant as a sound effect. At any rate, this is something that people can do.
after buying a new car ;)
But seriously, why don't more people take advantage of an opportunity to invest in companies that do well financially, and then turn around and donate the wealth to causes that fight them?
What a way to stick it to the less-socially-conscious shareholders, eh?
(btw, Pokey's back)
"We think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to develop a competing technology to RDRAM and not infringe on our patents," he said. "We are extremely confident in our legal position."
And they say that patents push for innovation.. This is utterly crazy. While I'm all for a company protecting its intellectual property, and even making big piles of cash from it, I feel that Rambus have taken patenting to be a method of market domination. This isn't what patents are about.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Ok, I haven't been keeping close score, so can anyone tell me who of the large memory manufactures hasn't given up the ghost to Rambus yet? Is Micron the only one left? If so, does anyone have pointers as to how they are faring in court?
It's really a crying shame that ideas stolen from a public standards group are being enforced as patents by such an ill-willed set of legal thugs.
-----------------------
Widgets for the web
Dojo: defanging browsers so you don't have to
I'd find it most amusing if Rambus ends up forcing its only worthwhile property (Its patents) into premature obscelescence through its collective greed and stupidity. I wonder if the company leaders think they'll be able to get jobs with any other tech company given their highly visible performance in driving this one into the rocks.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This announcement is probably meaningless without the details, which are hidden in the contract. It's entirely possible that there are no substantial royalty $$$ changing hands. Samsung has been deeply in bed with Rambus for a long time.
IMHO, Rambus settled with Toshiba for a song, and just to begin the precedent. Plus Toshiba has had long-standing relationships with Rambus. Hitachi and NEC settled easily because they had a pending merger, and wanted no legal difficulties with it. The merged entity will have to re-negotiate with Rambus. So no substantial money has changed hands here, either. I just don't know about Oki.
But (also IMHO) Rambus saw their status going down the toilet, and needed a positive announcement, in the face of the latest Intel revelations. I'll bet this Samsung deal is really a loss for them. I'll bet they were hoping to negotiate a "substantial" deal with Samsung later, and settled for a financially minor deal just for a press victory.
Obviously, if Rambus goes bust, then the patents will be sold to whomever when Rambus' creditors put the company's assets on the auction block. Just because the company goes under doesn't mean the patent disappears.
James
The companies didn't accept his technology because of the existence of competition, not patents. They wanted the marketing advantage they could derive from have exclusive rights to the technology. In the absence of the concept of a patent, these companies might not even exist because they need that marketing advantage to differentiate themselves. While some would argue this to be a good thing, it's difficult to argue this particular aspect of patents would increase innovation.
--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
The German semiconductor giant Infineon expressed outrage at Rambus's demand for licensing fees. They plan to not only contest the patent but file claims that Rambus's patents are invalidated by their own prior art.
If Rambus folds, then their assets will be bought by someone else, and they'll enforce the patents, or realize that engineers work cheaper than lawyers, and just fuggetaboudit.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Remember the criminal group from one of the first Tick episodes? (was it THE first?).
."
The "idea men".
Tick: "Hey, what's the big idea?"
IM1: "well, we thought we'd extort a whole bunch of money, then we'd be rich, and we wouldn't have to work anymore. .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Whether you like it or not the only people capable of stopping them are those who have real power - politicians. So the only answer is either to get directly involved in politics or to influence those already involved - supporting those who think like we do (that it is insane) and lobbying others (who don't think yet as we do).
I know that it fashionable to turn away from politics as something dirty and evil. However, such attitude doesn't help because it is the political process that shapes the situation. And it is true for every country - not only US.
Patents exists so that those who spend resources on research should be able to get something back, and thus stimulate more research.
What this shows is that the way the patent system works, it limits competition and makes research less interesting. Even if someone can come up woth some better technology, the economic advantage of doing so is partly removed.
Looks like the patent system may in, in some ways, be working against what it should be working for.
Timothy wrote: "I wonder what happens to those royalty deals, though, if the company goes Rambust ..."
I haven't seen the agreements, but you can write a deal that says anything you want, so there could be language dealing specifically with Rambus going out of business.
If Rambus did go under, its assets (desks, gumball machines etc) would be liquidated or sold off to other companies. Those assets include the patents we're talking about. Someone else (like, oh, say, Intel) would pay for them and own them, and start collecting the royalties.
Therefore, if you truly oppose Rambus, don't buy a PlayStation 2. That also holds true if you oppose SDMI, the DMCA, and the MPAA. The PlayStation 2 is the epitome of media corruption, and the corruption of the world by the media companies. By watching the facial expressions of people playing the PS2 demo unit, I learned the true meaning of "the idiot box".
In short, oppose Sony's monopolistic dreams: buy a Dreamcast.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
According to the article, about $1/box.
If its a valid patent, I can live with that. And if its not a valid patent, why did Samsung and the others settle? I'm sure its not because they can't afford the lawyers.
What's a sig?
In my opinion, Bill Gates is the best of the worst of the computer world. Sure, he's conquered the consumer/workstation market with Windows, but at least he doesn't intentionally degrade technology while pretending that it makes an improvement (like Sony's PlayStation 2 and its 4 megabytes of VRAM, and the latency and outrageous cost of Rambus which overshadows its high clock speed).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer