Fortune on Rambus 106
Weasel Boy writes: "Fortune delivers a whithering attack on Rambus, which as previously reported here, was found guilty of fraud when it tried to sue Infineon for patent infringement. The article gives a capsule history of Rambus and how it was brought down by the 'duplicity and greed' that made it a darling on Wall Street and despised in Silicon Valley, but prudently stops short of writing its epitaph."
Re:oops. (Score:1)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
Patent Problems? (Score:2)
We need more companies to do this sort of thing so that we can challenge the current problems with the patent system.
Re:Someone should by 'em out (Score:2)
Rambus' core memory is no faster than anyone elses. All RDRAM has is a different/novel way of communicating data across the bus. It's not even that good, when you get down to it in nitty-gritty detail: the RDRAM controller is a nightmare to implement well [even Rambus' own controller design sucks]. Precisely because of Rambus' wacky comms protocol. A good SDRAM controller is almost trivial.
Rambus can only go up to 1200MHz if they have core memory capable of that speed. And if they do, so do the SDRAM manufacturers. And if *they* do, they'll figure a way to get the same throughput and latency at a lower clockspeed without that comms bullshit.
Rambus is dead. Good riddance. RDRAM is the single worst feature of the PS2 so I'll be very happy if PS3 uses a more sensible memory architecture.
Re:As a designer of Rambus stuff .... (Score:2)
What the article didn't point out was that each of these ideas were already in RamBus's designs
Perhaps, but you have one year from the time a designe is publicly demonstrated (See a lawyer if you want an exact definition of this) to file for a patent. That is in the US, in most other countries, if it isn't patented when you demonstrate it then you can't patent it.
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:3)
This may not be the case in virginia, but I know other states have laws like this.
I'm betting DDR-SDRAM... (Score:2)
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:2)
No! Punitive damages are meant to punish the guilty party, hence the name. Sometimes a defendant is found to have made a calculated decision to break the law because the expected financial benefit of doing so was greater than the expected damages. As I understand things, the threat of punitive damages is intended to deter such calculation.
Re:misspelling (Score:2)
It appears that that was the problem, that they knew as much about configuring routers as they did about spelling. :-)
Next step: Go after Lemelson (Score:5)
Fortune recently wrote an article [fortune.com] about the schemes of Jerome Lemelson, who, with his cohorts, extorted billions from various industries by similar patent manipulations. Some have said "he didn't patent inventions, he invented patents."
Cognex is going after them now, ready to fight the good fight, just like these other folks did. Hopefully they'll be as successful.
Here's to the good guys!
Re: My Story (Score:2)
mostly for pedants such as yourself. you are making the assumption that poorly capitalized messages lack content. obviously you've never read alan cox's posts to the kernel mailing list
What bother me are the legions of engineering students and former engineering students who think that as technical people they don't need to be able to speak and write intelligently.
I am especially annoyed by people who write like that in email.
oh plz... iF tH3Y can understand what's being said between themselves then wtf cares .. Now, are we perhaps writing technical documentation or standards? Well, in that case there is certainly a need for precise language.
I don't feel email about snacks down the hall qualifies though. In fact I prefer the shorthand, it's quicker to read through. Your intolerance is also unlikely to make you friends among non-native english speakers.
There is a very real and unavoidable tendency for people to form their first impressions on others based on presentation as opposed to content. So stick with what the grammar nazis taught you if you're attempting to establish your credibility with a third party (even when you have none). Once that reputation is established, there is no reason to appease someone who gets flustered just because you don't dot your i's.
Re:Next step: Go after Lemelson (Score:2)
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
Re:Next step: Go after Lemelson (Score:3)
Pleast mod this dude up!!!
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
Re:Someone should by 'em out (Score:1)
When at the chip level and serveral requests are made constantly, the latency problem really kicks in.
--
Delphis
Re:oops. (Score:2)
Yes, MS might not be nice because they take an "open" standard, add "MS" before it, and viola! have their own standard... But i've yet to hear of them pulling what Rambus pulled...
Re:Next step: Go after Lemelson (Score:1)
That should be it's own /. article - great post! Fortune has had a number of good articles on the legal and financial background of technology issues lately; maybe I should read it more often.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:Intel (Score:1)
Hey, I'd root for the Mom 'n Pop making chips in the garage, except there really aren't any. Without that alternative, it's better in business to always root for the underdog. Competition ultimately leads to better products for everyone.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:You know, this just warms my heart. (Score:2)
This is OT, sorry.
E&S currently has ~80% of the market share in the government simulation business, IIRC, and they are focusing their sites on commercial business now as well. Just a list of some of their customers: most major airlines, NASA, some film and video studios, lots of planetariums (Digital Theater is lovely), and of course others.
And let's of course not forget their backing by Intel.
To say E&S has never been heard from again is silly considering how large of a company it is and how many contracts they have out. I haven't heard of the situation you described, but then again, that was quite a while ago.
If they view MP3 patents the same way... (Score:2)
I respect your comment (Score:1)
If I were you, I would have "put time and thought into what you wrote."
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:3)
Of which the most wonderful law is that you can incorporate in Delaware without having to live there. :-)
More seriously, there are some tax advantages, which a number of "incorporate your firm in Delaware" websites will cheerily mention. But one of the more important advantages in the long term is that the court system there is very fair and very predictable in its application of corporate law. Precedent really controls the rulings, and there is a large body and long history of precedent in the state.
Re: My Story (Score:2)
There is a big difference from being tolerant of people making honest grammatical mistakes, and from putting up with people who can't be bothered to even make an effort to get things right (and who think it doesn't matter if they get it wrong). I agree with a previous poster. There are too many engineers and computer science students who don't think English skills matter.
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:1)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:2)
Do THAT math, and all of a sudden DDR comes out ahead of RAMBUS (but, this is all oversimplification)
Re:Rambus should have counted their blessings... (Score:4)
That is far from the truth. RAMBUS is significantly different in many ways, and can't be criticized for its lack of innovation. But those changes have their tradeoffs.
See Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] article for the technical details.
*sigh* moderators (Score:1)
--bdj
p.s. *I* thought it was funny.
Re:Someone should by 'em out (Score:2)
It seems very clear that the managers at Rambus are primarily interested in money, so you may rest assured that when Rambus goes bust, its managers will be selling whatever legitimate technology Rambus owns for every penny they can get.
Re:Good story, but they left out one thing... (Score:2)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5)
Jailtime? (Score:2)
Don't fraudulent patent applications carry penalties? Perjury?
Re: My Story (Score:5)
Second, the ability to understand and apply the rules of English indicate a certain level of intelligence and education. Again, this is a clue to me as a reader that the author might have something worth reading.
Finally, poor spelling and grammar really do make things harder to read and understand. It causes the reader to spend more effort on understanding the important details, and less on deciphering the language. At the most extreme form of people trying to be cute with email "how r u doing", a lack of punctuation, capitalization, or any semblance of English is so distracting that the meager excuse for content is totally lost on the recipient.
That said, I have never found errors in the headlines and blurbs to be distracting. Sometimes the headlines do a poor job of conveying the topic of the link, but that is usually from some botched attempt at a journalistic "hook" than poor English.
This isn't meant to be a rant at the
I am especially annoyed by people who write like that in email. I don't really mind if people write like retarded 3rd graders to their friends (unless their friends includes me), but in an business setting even a brief and informal email to the person in the next cube deserves a few seconds of extra effort to translate it into real English.
Re:You know, this just warms my heart. (Score:2)
At least, that's how I read it...
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:1)
Anyone with a better explanation?
As a designer of Rambus stuff .... (Score:5)
One thing that's interesting about the story is that it describes how a RamBus employee went to standards meetings and came back with ideas for things to patent - then the company patented them. What the article didn't point out was that each of these ideas were already in RamBus's designs (for example the low voltage swings were a staple of their basic idea etc etc). It's more a case of them being prompted by the meetings to cover their butts than outright stealing of other people's ideas.
Having said that they obviously didn't bother to patent this stuff - IMHO much of it is "obvious to one skilled in the art" - proved by the fact that it was being independantly invented in the standards meetings by others who are obviously skilled in the art and therefore should never have been accepted as a patent by the USPTO (like they care, or bother to check)
Re:As a designer of Rambus stuff .... (Score:2)
I thought the whole concept of a standards body was so that everyone could profit from the technology, not one company figure out what others on a standards body or group may use.
I'm sure many have brought this up but why did Rambus choose to join the standards body if it had no intention to contribute (without a steep price)
It seems if they wanted to cover their buts they should have never joined JEDEC.
I think the mere fact that they did join JEDEC and patent their technology *after* meeting with other companies is insulting and regardless of who's design it was, they screwed up.
So many people utter over and over, it's all about execution. Rambus doesn't have a clue.
Fortune delivers a whithering attack on Rambus... (Score:3)
Rambus, like, sucks and stuff. They have dumb employees and they kinda smell like poo. Nyahh!!! Neener neener! Take that Rambus!
foo@localhost:/usr/home/foo$
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:1)
Thanks.
Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:3)
A federal court jury here Wednesday afternoon found Rambus Inc. had committed fraud by failing to disclose its synchronous patent applications to the industry JEDEC standards body.
and
The damage amount, however, will likely be reduced to as low as $350,000 due to a Virginia state law capping the level of punitive awards.
Can someone explain why a federal award would be reduced under state law?
Re:Next step: Go after Lemelson (Score:1)
Anything that requires expenditure of money will favor the parties with more money, unless you've got some way of making the expenditure of money proportional to each party's assets (wouldn't THAT put a crimp in a large corporations legal strategies :-)
Re:Someone should by 'em out (Score:2)
mainstream media obtains a clue! (Score:5)
what'll we see next?
Business Week: "Bill Gates - No Longer Our Hero"
ABC News: "Next up - Why Soundbite Journalism Sucks"
ZDNet: ... uh... well... I don't want to push my luck. ;-) Guess I'll just count my blessings.
Good story, but they left out one thing... (Score:2)
That's why I don't expect Rambus to be in business three years from now.
still disapointed ... (Score:2)
Re:Good story, but they left out one thing... (Score:2)
--Fesh
Market cap is $1 billion (Score:2)
Webvan's down to $35 million, so we could get them for about 1/10th the cost.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:2)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:2)
Plus, at a 1.2GHz external bus, you start to run into speed of light limitations. The clock cycle at 1.2GHz is about 833ps. During that time frame, light travels about 10 inches (25cm). Compare that to a 266MHz bus, where the cycle time is about 3.5ns. You get just over a yard. Also, consider that you have to cycle from high to low and back to high in that time frame, so (I think) that at 1.2GHz, your traces can't be any longer than about 5 inches, whereas at 266MHz, you can have 18inch traces.
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:1)
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:2)
Re:Someone should by 'em out (Score:1)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
Re: My Story (Score:1)
Sure it is a standard, but there is not just one standard English language. Different localities have its own 'standards'. It is not an API, but a protocol. As long as both parties agree to a certain protocol (perhaps even slighly different, but compatible), communication can be achieved. Calling one that does not speak your protocol 'stupid' is ignorant, self-centered, and racist.
Re:Intel (Score:1)
Is that enough for the coffin nails, then? (Score:3)
I think it's pretty clear that what Rambus was doing was pretty slimy, and they were found guilty with good reason. JEDEC members had an understanding. Rambus trampled on it and then jumped ship to avoid facing the music. I do think the "running scared" comment that someone pointed out does indicate a sense of delusion on the part of the Rambus partisans; I mean, I said the same thing about Intel's advertising FUD back when Apple started shipping Power Macs, but the comment actually made sense at the time.
I look at it this way: any memory bus that requires anything even vaguely resembling a terminator is probably broken anyway.
/Brian
Unfortunately, (Score:5)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:2)
From the article... In light of admissions like that, it's not surprising that the jury found that Rambus had committed fraud and slapped the company with $3.5 million in damages ...
And they imply that a current trial could end with the dismissal of several of Rambus' patents.
Ask and you shall receive. Does anyone on here actually read these articles?!
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
What RDRAM can (and does) do is use multiple memory channels to access more modules at once and effectively provide higher bandwidth. This requires pairs (or quartets if they go quad-channel) of modules and is something DDR-SDRAM can also do. Check out Nvidia's high-end Nforce chipset (there are two) for an example of dual-channel DDR-SDRAM.
Withering, not whithering (Score:1)
*sigh* moderation, plz (Score:1)
Re: My Story (Score:1)
As a non native-english speaker, I certainly appreciate more reading correct english than 3733t FuNlOoKiNg "art".
Re:Rambus should have counted their blessings... (Score:1)
I haven't read the Ars Technica article (but I will!), so bear this in mind in my reply--
From the Fortune article linked to in this story--
That's kind of where I got my info.. it's more likely that the author was just uninformed, but having not read the article you linked to, I don't know. =) I just wanted to let you know the source of my comment.
Rambus should have counted their blessings... (Score:5)
Getting Intel to declare your memory architecure as the defacto standard for their new upcoming processor(s) should have been enough. The money they were getting for licensing RDRAM was guaranteed, and about the only way they could have failed in the open market is if the Pentium 4 had failed (which it has, to an extent, but it's not entirely dead).
I do agree with the Fortune writer that Rambus got greedy, and that's too bad-- having more companies working on technology is never a bad thing, but in the case of Rambus, when a company tries to choke off their competitors, it's doomed to failure. I think everyone agrees that it was nice having 3DFX, nVidia and ATI competing in the 3D graphics chipset market-- which is why it's nice to have memory makers competing with different technologies or standards. As the competition is either bought or crushed, there's less incentive from the remaining companies to continue to innovate. (Granted I don't know that Rambus really innovated on anything-- from the article and what I've heard, RDRAM "technology" is nearly identical to SDRAM except for a handful of minor changes..)
It'll be interesting to see how these rulings against RMBS turn up on appeal (though I really doubt they'll get the verdicts overturned).
Re:oops. (Score:1)
for anyone lucky enough to be holding RMBS options in early 2000, the words fortune and rambus could not be separated. waging a chevy metro on their name at that time could have netted you a bmw m5.
of course, I think they're scum for what they tried to do to the industry. But they sure did make a lot of people a lot of money.
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
Re:MOD THIS UP! (Score:1)
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:1)
Re: My Story (Score:1)
But then I am a screaming intellectual snob.
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
RDRAM 400Mhz DDR with a 16bit data path 400x2x16=12,800
DDR-SDRAM 133Mhz DDR with a 64bit data path 133x2x64=17,024
this is the max data throughput fot both types of memory, only adding chanels(or speeding up the bus) can increse the data rate. RDRAM has a smaller bus(fewer traces on the PCB) cheeper to add RDRAM chanels than SDRAM.
Re:Someone should by 'em out (Score:1)
133Mhz DDR not 266Mhz!
Hum let's see 400Mhz DDR and a 16bit data bus works out to 12,800, and 133Mhz DDR with a 64bit bus works out to 17,024. Both use Havard type architure(data and address over the same bus) this is why SDRAM has a lower CAS all of the addres information arives at once RDRAM takes 4 cycles to transmit address information, the lookup can only start once all the address information has been recived.
oops. (Score:3)
Nevermind.
Re:Wasn't the suit in federal court? (Score:1)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1332.html
Basically it is there for people/companies who are from different states and is commonly referred to as "diversity".
Finally, as referred earlier, if the reason you are in Federal Court is diversity, then the court will be applying state law (in general) although you're in federal court.
Someone stated here that you apply state law unless there is a federal one, but that isn't exactly true. In such a case you've got a conflict of laws and it really is a battle of lawyers and judges to figure out which law applies.
Obviously if the federal law in question is directly one granted under the Constitution then Federal Law applies. However, there is a great deal of argument (and has been for half a century) about how far the Federal Government can regulate under the theory of Interstate Commerce. Last decade, the US executive branch attempted to pass laws concerning "school violence" under the theory that it affected Interstate Commerce and therefore they were allowed to pass laws to that affect.
Touchy subject. Some lawyers make their whole careers based upon conflict of laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like my old dad used to say... (Score:1)
The bulls survive, and the bears survive, but the pigs get eaten.
Re:Intel (Score:1)
I'm not sure at how this statement relates to the article at all. The only thing that I can figure is that you for some reason equate RDRAM with Intel processors and DDR/SDRAM with AMD processors. Obviously that isn't the case as SDRAM is supported by Intel-based chipsets, and Intel is planning to release DDR boards for their Pentium IV processors around the end of the year (they would have done so sooner had there not been a stipulation in their contract that Rambus preventing them from doing it).
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:You know, this just warms my heart. (Score:2)
I think that what he was saying is that E&S never came knocking on their doors again about that particular "patent."
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Has anyone been to www.rambusite.com? (Score:2)
The thing that I just don't understand about Rambus is this:
The tech industry said all along that it was too expensive. Most memory manufacturers who were far larger than Rambus ever dreamed to be were working on a competing standard that had higher performance at a lower cost. Nobody in the tech biz wanted to even mess with Rambus, even after Intel decided to go with RDRAM and basically bribed memory manufacturers to license the technology. Rambus's heavy-handed tactics were well-known in the industry and they were spurned for it.
How in the hell could any analyst or market researcher even pretend that Rambus was ever a smart buy (at any price)? It was obvious from the beginning that it was doomed to failure. And yet it became one of the hottest IPOs ever. And had an astronomical P/E ratio. It just goes to show you that when it comes to the stock market, even the "experts" are clueless.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re: My Story (Score:2)
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re: My Story (Score:2)
Pray tell, just where did my "ignorant, self-centered, and racist (racist???)" self call anybody stupid for not having correct grammar and punctuation?
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups. [thedaythatcounts.org]
Re:Italian spelling (Score:1)
Re:Next step: Go after Lemelson (Score:2)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
Re:mainstream media obtains a clue! (Score:1)
Slashdot: see ZDNet
That's two greedy SOBs (Score:1)
Basically, Lemelson used this loophole: (from the article) Until that 1995 law changed the rules, a newly issued patent had a 17-year life span--during which time nobody was supposed to be able to use the idea without paying for it. But a patent application could be delayed through something called a "continuation." During that process, applicants were permitted to amend, modify, or add claims to their inventions. As long as the inventor could persuade an examiner that the new claims were consistent with the original specifications, he could even go so far as to incorporate somebody else's technology into his own patent application.
These lines picture well how obvious Lemelson's strategy was. Sad thing here is, it started working when Sony licensed "Lemelson's" technology for 2 million because it was peanuts for Sony. You can guess, what man can do with that kind of money and determination to litigate anyone..
(from the article) For example, here is Lemelson in 1967, intensely monitoring other people's inventions--and then trying to capture them in his own pending patent applications. "I am enclosing a reprint of an article in the February 1967 issue of Control Engineering Magazine which briefly describes the Speed-Park Garage," Lemelson writes, referring to an automated car-parking garage that Ford had just opened. He then suggests modifying one of his pending patent applications so that it would cover a key element of the technology: "It may be quite profitable to us in the future to attempt to get claims on the fork-reject switch...." Another letter describes how a competitor has redesigned a part so that it wouldn't infringe on Lemelson's patent. "Couldn't we file a reissue application," Lemelson asks, "to add a claim or two to cover this aspect?"
And this man tought of himself as "modern day Edison". pfft.
Re:Intel (Score:1)
the furtune story... (Score:1)
They could have been giants (Score:3)
But imagine how easily things could have gone very wrong. Imagine that Rambus was the giant in the industry, and the other manufacturers were small. In that case, Rambus would have won the lawsuits, or maybe settled. And there would be a company with Microsoft style monopoly.
You'd be paying $300 bucks for your 128 MB instead of $30.
Re:Intel (Score:1)
Re:oops. (Score:1)
--- (Score:1)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
Re:still disapointed ... (Score:1)
Someone should by 'em out (Score:3)
Re:My Story (Score:1)
And as for the glass wall thing. There ARE glass walls at exodus, at least at the one complex I've been to. But they separate the data center from offices and stuff like that. Not cage from cage.
There are also security cameras all over the place. I wanna see the video of Hemos, with his hot coffee breath and unwashed body...
-Justin
Re: My Story (Score:1)
Plus, this post (with the error) should not have been moderated to this level.
With all that being said, "how r u doing now?".
Re:Intel (Score:2)
Has anyone been to www.rambusite.com? (Score:2)