Slashdot Mirror
Rambus Wins Case Against Infineon
rednoise writes "Yahoo is running a story about how a Federal Circuit Court in California (I think) has (unbelievably) ruled that RAMBUS did NOT intentionally mislead members of JEDEC when the committee was developing the SDRAM specification. RAMBUS' stock skyrocketed something like 57% on the news. This is very bad news for owners of computers."
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
But that isn't the point. Yes, they have the patent. The problem is that they were part of the standards body (SDRAM?) that pushed for technology that Rambus was in the process of (?had already?) patented. I think it was Rambus's duty to disclose the patent when they were helping to set the standard.
That's not the issue, the issue is that JEDEC addopted the technology as standard and RAMBUS went behind everyone else's backs and patented it. Quoth the article:
Infineon, of Germany, and some other technology companies have accused Rambus of tricking computer-chip makers into adopting technologies for which it held or was seeking patents for chips in a wide range of electronic gear.
Antitrust enforcers at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission leveled similar accusations in a lawsuit filed last year.
This is not a simple case of patent infringement that you seem to think it is.
-- iCEBaLM
It's incredibly scarey when the company that actually owns the patent to the technology that is the future of RAM can't play fair with the other children.
Not intending to mislead the JEDEC is no excuse to doing it. They either did or didn't. Try telling a traffic cop you didn't intend to speed.
- We are all so caught up in hating RAMBUS, that we fail to realize
- they rightfully own the patent under U.S. law no matter how many other people violated it...
That's not the point. The point is, that when the JEDEC (of which RAMBUS Inc. was and is a member) was working up the SDRAM spec, RAMBUS somehow "forgot" to mention that they already had a patent on something that was going into the spec.In other words, it's not a matter of RAMBUS rightfully owning the patent under U.S. law and it never was. It's a matter of RAMBUS implicitly giving JEDEC (and any user of the free and open JEDEC SDRAM spec) a free license to use that patent when they "forgot" to tell the group about this little patent they had.
So yes, RAMBUS owns the patent. However, they gave up their right to enforce it when they misled the JEDEC into incorporating it into the SDRAM standard.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
I have no real problem with RAMBUS enforcing their patent, as long as it's clear that they are doing so fully legally.
The primary issues (that I'm aware of) are that RAMBUS is accused of essentially hiding the existence of the patent during the JEDEC collaboration and whether what Infineon has done actually constitutes infringement.
The current ruling seems to indicate that there was no fraud involved in patenting during the JEDEC proceedings, but even that doesn't necessarily free RAMBUS from the onus of proving infringement. Whether the patent itself was initiated fraudulently or not, there is still a clause in patent law that they cannot sit on the patent and enforce it at a later date.
In addition, it would also have to be demonstrated that Infineon (among other potentials) were aware that the technology involved was indeed patented at the time the implemented it. There is a substantial legal difference between willful and incidental infringement. And if it is true that RAMBUS stayed mum about the existence of their patent, it's pretty clear that any infringement that may have occured before knowledge of the patents existence would definitely be non-willful.
I'm certainly not up on all aspects of this case, and there are most likely facts and items that I have no knowledge of, but the general perception is that RAMBUS is using ambush tactics as a profit mechanism.
I have no problems with the concept of patents, and I have no problem with those who hold valid patents, but I do have a problem with patents being used for ambush tactics and the like. Likewise, if Infineon really did willfully infringe, I have no problem with them being brought to task for it.
Obviously, there will be more to come in this saga, so it'll be interesting to see where the dust settles.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
Surely this whole case represents incompetency of the standards body & their lawyers. Are patents discoverable? Is this not part of due diligence? I would expect more than a quick question in determining these things. I expect that proper checks are made and binding agreements reached before progressing. It sounds like RAMBUS did the wrong thing...but why were they allowed to get away with it. They should have been caught way back and these issues sorted out. To stand up in court and plead both ignorance and trust as a case will never work.
It had to be said....
1.) Start a company.
2.) Sue the living bejesus out of everyone
3.) PROFIT!!!!!!!!!
The sad thing is that apparently works...
Such prose by a
Does anyone grow weary of the uninformed bashing? The story is about these two paragraphs
No actual change of verdict on the rambus case, mainly a proceedural flaw. Where in this story is anything that justifies your comment about Rambus and Bush? Most of us eagerly await your evolution into a real human being.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
"What holds back RDRAM in terms of price is that there isn't enough being sold." Exactly. Because the price is too HIGH for the average consumer. If there was a clear benefit to using RDRAM over DDR that *JUSTIFIIED* the price difference then consumers would choose to buy RDRAM. We have a free enterprise system. People will buy a product only when there is a net benefit to them. I suggest you read up on some elementary economics if you would like to understand a little bit more about why people don't buy overpriced products.
Thank goodness that the Microsofts and the Rambuses in the world are protecting the freedom to innovate...we all know (smaller companies) are totally incapable of innovation.
This is funny, but there is a problem with the (implied) argument. Rambus is not a very large company as they come, in fact it is basically a small fabless company which is totally dependent for revenue on licensing its intellectual property. It is nowhere near as large as Infineon (formerly the semiconductor division of Siemens AG), not to speak of Microsoft. Second, Rambus actually has designed technology...RDRAM is basically an original technology, and much more of a departure from conventional memory architecture than DDR or any of its competitors. Whether it is a better technology right now, in practice, is another matter, and there are apparently major problems producing RDRAM modules at the moment. Furthermore, no one disputes that the SDRAM patents that were at issue in this case were valid, and concerned technologies that Rambus actually did develop themselves.
There are basically two things about Rambus that are reprehensible, though -- neither of them have anything to do with innovation. First, they didn't disclose their patents at the time they were on a committee that was designing the SDRAM technology (which they are now suing manufacturers of), and second, their current attempts to support themselves through royalties relating to this undisclosed patent. And the second, while disturbing, is not illegal.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
From what I can tell, Philips is one of the "good guys". Well, as much as a corporation can be a "good guy". At least I personally haven't heard of them doing anything outright evil. Also, Philips is not like the companies we're used to dealing with in North America. Being based in northern Europe seems to give them a bit of a more pragmatic outlook on things, IMHO.
The 9-judge supreme court can overturn a jury. I think the argument before the appeal court was about the law, not the facts. Juries weigh the facts, judges handle the law.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Too bad RAMBUS doesn't share your faith in their own technology. They didn't care which RAM was better, their plan was to hit DDR suppliers with ever-increasing licensing fees, forcing them to raise prices until RDRAM was cheaper than DDR, and take over the market that way.