Slashdot Mirror
JEDEC Fiddles With DDR4 While LRDIMM Burns
An anonymous reader writes "JEDEC hasn't finalized the upcoming DDR4 standard yet, but it seems they left out licensing some crucial IP for (the already finalized and shipping) LRDIMMs (for use on data center servers). As a result they are only produced by one source which is facing some hurdles justifying their copying of IP. This article discusses how DDR4 is based on LRDIMMs and the future of memory. Quoting: 'JEDEC finalized the LRDIMM standard without securing licensing on load reduction and rank multiplication. Inphi, currently the only maker of LRDIMM buffer chipsets – others have backed off – lost a challenge of Netlist IP at the USPTO. As a result the Netlist patents have become stronger and are going to come back and bite Inphi in Netlist vs. Inphi, which was stayed pending these patent reexaminations – patents which survive re-examination can never again be challenged in court. NLST patents ’537 and ’274 survived with all claims intact, which is a powerful statement on the strength of their IP – Inphi has appealed to the BPAI, but the USPTO decision is telling.'"
To promote the progress of science and useful arts. Imagine where we'd be without them!
ABC hasn't finalized the upcoming DEF standard yet, but it seems they left out licensing some crucial IP for (the already finalized and shipping) ASDFGH
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt[1].
But I can't find any substitution that makes the shitty headline even resemble the [probably apocryphal] quote about the horse fucking wop-in-chief.
There's fail, there's epic fail and then there's faileroony.
[1] this is a lie. But the dice said I should, at least this time.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"patents which survive re-examination can never again be challenged in court"
Wrong. A party that files an inter partes reexamination petition and that petition for inter partes reexamination is granted by the PTO (initiating an inter partes reexamination), may not "assert[] at a later time, in any civil action. . . the invalidity of any claim finally determined to be valid and patentable on any ground which the third-party requester raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination proceedings." 35 USC 315(c)
So, anyone other than Inphi (or its privies) may challenge the patents' validity in Court on any grounds, including the prior art that was before the PTO in the Inphi v. Netlist reexam. Moreover, Inphi could challenge the patents on "any ground which" Inphi did not "raise" and "could" not "have raised" in the inter partes reexamination. This would include, at a minimum, any ground for invalidity other than prior art in the form of other patents printed publications. 35 USC 301, 311(a). I.e., invalidity under 35 USC 101 ( patentable subject matter, utility), 112 (indefiniteness, written description, enablement) and 102(b) (public use, on sale).
Also, Netlist amended a bunch of claims, which typically raises major worries about validity for written description.
As a result they are only produced by one source which is facing some hurdles justifying their copying of IP.
I am the only one who's annoyed by the poster's complete lack of critical reflection on those "IP" claims? Are the IP lawyers and lobbyists now getting their anonymous postings on slashdot, too? I'm close to deleting my /. account.
BTW I'm also annoyed by the fact that people got so used to the somewhat nonsensical oxymoron "Intelectual Property".
After the RAMBUS-scum ran their scam by participating in JEDEC and then patenting the standard elements, I would expect JEDEC to have gotten smarter. Apparently not.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The blog referenced is by the Yahoo Finance NLST stock group poster vicl2012v. He writes the blog, then uses references to it on the NLST Yahoo stock board to back up his points. Totally self referential.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_N/threadview?m=ts&bn=51443&tid=52454&mid=52454
The Yahoo stock board is the usual UN-moderated open mess of spammers, and self interested parties both overplaying and hiding their interests.
As the post here is submitted by anonymous draw your own conclusions.
I've read and re-read this article summary four times. I haven't the foggiest idea what the OP is actually trying to convey. Can someone who has had the days of time needed to research all the background post a readable summary?
Netlist was founded in 2000 and had revenues of $14 million last quarter.
They are not (as far as I can tell) a patent troll.. they design and manufacture memory subsystems.
JDEC made sure all of the big players IP was properly licensed, but left out Netlist's patent. How do we know the big players weren't just trying to screw them over?
http://www.netlist.com/about-netlist/history/
http://www.netlist.com/about-netlist/quality-and-manufacturing/
http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=54253&GoTopage=1&Category=1629&BzID=1941
... that's the end of the standards. They'll have to go back to JC-42 and JC-45 to be redone.
JEDEC has been down this road before and I'll be astonished if they make an exception in this case. And, yes, I know JC-42 and JC-45. I spent years on them.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
To promote the progress of science and useful arts. Imagine where we'd be without them!
We'd be without this technology to argue over. What do you think would happen?
I think what folks are forgetting here is - it is not a fight between a small company (NLST) against a big company (Intel, Samsung).
Or a small company squeezing Intel/Samsung.
The thing to remember is Inphi copied Netlist IP - then based a WHOLE IPO worth millions of dollars on the basis of a lie - that they owned the IP to load reduction and rank multiplication and that they had developed it at JEDEC.
IDTI (another LRDIMM maker who has since scaled down and postponed LRDIMMs) did not subscribe to that - and used to scoff at Inphi's claims.
Add to that the co-founder and CFO and CEO of Inphi have left the company - possibly with benefit of IPO in pocket.
So it is a case of lying, misappropriation etc.
Intel, Samsung and JEDEC come into the picture in a secondary way.
But the impact of their willingness to go along with a liar - is coming back to discount LRDIMMs as a viable product.
Oddly enough it was not the patent wins by NLST which broke the story (for industry folks) - it was that after having copied the IP, Inphi COULD NOT DELIVER.
The LRDIMMs that were delivered for Romley in early 2012 had problems - and it became clear they were not going to deliver what they had promised.
As a result the Netlist (original inventor) product works better than LRDIMMs - and DDR4 is copying LRDIMM - but going further and copying the way Netlist is doing it.
As a result IBM/HP had the foresight to include not just LRDIMMs but also Netlist HyperCloud at Intel Romley server launch.
IBM offers it as IBM HCDIMM.
HP offers it as HP HDIMM (or HP Smart Memory HyperCloud).
It is not such a complicated story folks.
RMBS has similarities to MetaRAM.
MetaRAM founder Suresh Rajan was from RBMS - is now back at Rambus it seems.
MetaRAM CEO is a "Technical Advisor" to Inphi (the maker of LRDIMM buffer chipsets).
You connect the dots. It is Inphi which goes back to RMBS.
RMBS was guilty of using JEDEC activity to drive their patent portfolio (without telling JEDEC).
In contrast Netlist IP was probably leaked by Texas Instruments to JEDEC (at least that's what it seems from Netlist vs. Texas Instruments settlement some years ago). After that Intel revealed a design that looked like Netlist's - at which point Netlist complained and revealed that they held IP in this area (as all JEDEC members are required to do in the post-RMBS era if ideas conflicting a company's IP are revealed at JEDEC). And then Netlist left the JEDEC. Netlist thus is under no compulsion to offer IP on RAND terms to JEDEC (as JEDEC members are expected to do).
However it seems Netlist HAS offered this IP to JEDEC on RAND terms in the past. Whether they are willing to do so now or not I do not know.
There is a link in that article to the USPTO docs - "Examining patent docs at USPTO".
You can check out which claims of the patents survived (nearly all the claims in the two patents combined - and it included lots of new claims as well - which is an added benefit of patent reexam for the patent owner as they get to add claims if they want as well).
In addition, the USPTO has been awarding continuation patents for some of those patents.
NLST has a long history of patents in this area (being the inventor) - so it is surprising that Inphi chose to be so blatant in their disregard.
In any case whatever survives reexam becomes harder to challenge and you have to come up with more creative ways to justify a challenge.
Can anyone add to this. Why has this not been reported before ?
What an inflammatory headline. I'd definitely mod that flame-bait.
Good summary.
LRDIMMs have that legal problem, but they also are not as good.
Plus the patent owner makes product as well (unlike Rambus).
The stupid thing is they could have seen this coming from a mile away - as NLST has been in this area a long time.