Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rambus Files Antitrust Suit Against Memory Makers

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the companies-based-upon-litigation-other-than-sco dept.

bender647 writes "Forbes reports: 'Chip designer Rambus sued several major computer memory makers Wednesday, claiming they illegally conspired to limit production and raise prices in an effort to block widespread adoption of Rambus' technology.' Rambus believes that RDRAM was not the success it should have been because chip makers did not want to pay their royalties."

13 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. insane by apocalypse76 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, so thier trying to have other companies pay for thier own stupidity?

    1. Re:insane by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > Anybody not see this coming from a company that patents ideas coming from a industry meeting, slipped their proprietary IP into open standards, sued the manufacturers of their products, and generally behaved as a two year old in the ethics department?
      >
      > Man, who would chose to work for this company?

      I hear Darl McBride'll be looking for work pretty soon.

      Apparently, someone told him he could still sue people who refused to pay the additional $69.90 for the stick of RDRAM that RAMBUS forgot to bundle with every $699.00 SCO OpenSewer License.

  2. Shocking! by ePhil_One · · Score: 5, Funny
    Rambus believes that RDRAM was not the success it should have been because chip makers did not want to pay their royalties.

    I can't imagine why any manufacturer would have done a thing like that.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    1. Re:Shocking! by john82 · · Score: 4, Funny

      We have a fiduciary obligation to our shareholders to do something about this.

      So, like SCO, Rambus' answer to problems of their own making is to sue their more successful competition. Perhaps Rambus' chief legal eagle has been reading Darl's book: "Waah, nobody likes me so I'm going to take your toys and go home."

    2. Re:Shocking! by jared_hanson · · Score: 4, Funny

      In a related story, I plan to file suit against all readers of Slashdot who did not by the DaHat SuperFoo as I feel that you are all conspiring against me and it to make it fail and that it has nothing to do with the fact that the price per SuperFoo is more then any of you would want to pay.

      If said SuperFoo can break up the sentence above into something understandable, I will pay any price. Really.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
  3. Royalties? by slycer9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The manufacturers didn't want to pay their royalties?

    Think about that for a second. 'We weren't successful because they didn't want to pay for it.'

    I tried that argument down at the Ducati dealer, didn't work there either.

    --
    Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
  4. Priceless. by DShard · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I sue a set of companies who did not want to use a proprietary licensed technology over a open spec. I wonder if SCO's being giving them stupidity lessons.

  5. Or just maybe... maybe... by Faust7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rambus believes that RDRAM was not the success it should have been because chip makers did not want to pay their royalties.

    Or maybe it was because it was too expensive and better alternatives existed?

    Ever consider that one, legal geniuses at Rambus?

    --
    The coolest voice ever.
    1. Re:Or just maybe... maybe... by IceAgeComing · · Score: 4, Funny


      ``We can't ignore the strength of this evidence,'' said Rambus general counsel John Danforth. ``We have a fiduciary obligation to our shareholders to do something about this.''

      Well, if its a fiduciary obligation, then he must be really smart, and he must know what he's talking about. So, he's probably right. I know he doesn't mention the evidence, probably because I'm too dumb to understand it if he did.

      I've learned that people who use fancy words on TV are really important, and others usually try not to get in their way. Because they're so right. It wouldn't make sense to get in the way of someone who's so right.

  6. The SCO school of success! by jerky42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like they have been going to the SCO charm school. I bet SCO sues them for stealing business secrets.

    --
    The strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must.
  7. Stab by Glonoinha · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We have a fiduciary obligation to our shareholders to do something about this"

    Ok from now on whoever says this, gets stabbed in the throat. That phrase is hereby forbidden, under penalty of Throatgestabben.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  8. Re:The real truth by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny
    And yet people will now willingly buy matched pairs of Dual Channel DDR... Can anyone say hypocracy?

    We can say it, allright. Can anybody spell it?

    ;-)

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  9. Obligatory... (Re: insane) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, Monopolist sues YOU for anti-trust!