Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

JEDEC Fiddles With DDR4 While LRDIMM Burns

Posted by Soulskill on from the patents-are-complicated dept.

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.'"

18 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. I sure am glad we have patents... by Rix · · Score: 5, Funny

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts. Imagine where we'd be without them!

    1. Re:I sure am glad we have patents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps we wouldn't have LRDIMM memory either since no one bothered to invent some of the technology that has apparently made it possible.

      We probably wouldn't have many new start-ups either as the incumbent players would just continue to rip off everything they invent. The only way you could possibly make something is if the design or manufacture could be kept secret, leading to the possibility of lost knowledge should the few who know how something is made fail to pass that information on to others.

      The patent system is certainly not ideal in its current implementation, but that's not an excuse to scrap thing entirely.

    2. Re:I sure am glad we have patents... by leromarinvit · · Score: 3, Funny

      The patent system is certainly not ideal in its current implementation, but that's not an excuse to scrap thing entirely.

      I suppose you didn't want to infringe on the patent on using articles in conjunction with nouns?

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    3. Re:I sure am glad we have patents... by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You must be kidding. Startups don't get patents that support them. They either get themselves a patent they can't afford to defend (and so it does nothing but cost) or they get squashed like a bug by a big incumbent with a huge portfolio.

    4. Re:I sure am glad we have patents... by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      Startups without patents don't get investors. If they have patents the investors will look at them and if they like what they see, invest their money AND help defend those patents. If you don't have patents, you don't have a chance at venture capital unless you aren't building new IP but instead do services or build existing product under license or do something else that doesn't require you to defend your IP from people who could easily reverse engineer and copy it.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    5. Re:I sure am glad we have patents... by sjames · · Score: 2

      That certainly has been true, but was simply a matter of the investors over-valuing the patent. Investors saw it more as a signifier that they had an actual idea and were organized than anything else. These days, patents are losing importance to investors as they realize that they don't even say anything about inventiveness. In any event, that had little to do with the actual utility of the patent. They would be better off if there was no such thing.

  2. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

  3. "justifying their copying of IP" by dvdkhlng · · Score: 2

    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".

  4. They still have not learned? by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:They still have not learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes but this was a problem perpetuated by Intel.

      LRDIMMS can be used in DDR3 systems NOW. And guess what, they're 10 times the price.

      The company that makes the chipset is actually in the kind of situation Qualcomm is in, not RAMBUS. Where if they sue someone for copying their IP, they face being sued back, but they're certainly within their rights to enforce their IP. If they were to sue any of the RAM stick manufacturers (eg Kingston, G.Skill, Crucial, etc) they likely will not buy their product, and DDR3 will continue in the same way that DDR took off from regular SDRAM instead of Rambus.

      Rambus snuck their IP into to JEDEC, and thus Intel designed, and subsequently had to throw away an entire line of Chipsets (i820) and their CPU's (All the Pentium 4 line up to Core Duo) and go back to the Pentium 3 and retool from there. So the people who will lose the most are Intel and AMD if JEDEC allows IP that can't be FRAND into the specification.

  5. self promotion - by RichMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:self promotion - by RichMan · · Score: 2

      I submit that yahoo poster vicl2012v is the writer of the blog and submitter to Slashdot and likely the anon doing a lot of responses here.

      Here is a post on yahoo asking for help in boosting the story through slashdot submission.
      http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_N/threadview?m=te&bn=51443&tid=52505&mid=52505

      "Click on this slashdot submission if you want to vote it up so it appears on slashdot:"
      This yahoo post is 21minutes (June 8/11:19pm) after the /. submission (June 8/10:58pm)
      and Vicl is unfamiliar with /. so how in 21 minutes did he become aware of the post ?
      "There is a rating slider on the middle-right as well. You can drag the sliders to the left - but it seems these are for rating the comments (?). "

      As to the truthfulness of the post I make no comment.
      But it looks like a Yahoo Stock board poster promoted his own blog entry to slashdot, a major score in small stock touting.

  6. WTF Is this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:WTF Is this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Layman speculation, don't take this as gospel. I think it's mostly accurate, though.

      JEDEC is a big consortium of technology companies that designs RAM standards. SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, DDR4? Those were all designed and standardized by JEDEC.

      As for LRDIMMs: all sorts of problems start to pop up when you start adding more than 8 or so sticks of RAM per processor. I'm not an electrical engineer, but the basic gist is "things do not work properly". There have been various schemes to combat this in the past: FB-DIMMs (fully buffered), R-DIMMs (registered), and probably some others I can't think of; they generally involve some sort of tradeoff to beat that whole more-than-8-sticks-of-RAM problem. LRDIMMs are the "next generation" of this. Useful for data centres and servers where you need a huge amount of memory in a small space.

      Anyway, it appears that JEDEC finalized the LRDIMM standard, but failed to license a few very important patents. So it seems that this one company (Inphi) went ahead and started making chips for LRDIMMs, but didn't realize (or didn't care) that they were infringing on some other company (Netlist)'s patents. Netlist sued for infringement and won. This is a troublesome situation because it seems JEDEC has created a standard which requires third-party licensing. The reason that is bad is that Netlist could completely choke off the supply of chips for LRDIMMs if they decide to set their license fees too high. Or Netlist could try to gain a monopoly as the only producer of these chips. It's possible for Netlist to really screw with adoption of LRDIMMs.

      And there's some mention that DDR4 (not yet finalized) may have similarities to the LRDIMM standard, which may have similar consequences, just for DDR4.

      The article isn't that great. It seems to be more of a financial hot-tips kind of thing, as RichMan somewhat suggests elsewhere in these comments.

  7. Netlist IS a small company by rgbrenner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Netlist IS a small company by sjames · · Score: 2

      Netlist is not a small startup. They're 12 years old, well past their IPO, have 200 employees and 60 million in revenue. Even with that going for it, you noted that their patents seem to have been ignored by the larger players as if they didn't exist.

  8. Unless the patents are licensed under RAND by overshoot · · Score: 2

    ... 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, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  9. Re:Alphabet soup by hlavac · · Score: 2

    You don't know what DDR is?

    East Germany?