RAMBUS vindicated.

I just read through the whole of Micron's claim document. Jeeezus. If any of that is true, then Rambus is teh evol and must be eradicated like the vermin they are.

Of course, it could all be FUD...
 
*dips toe into thread* .. *pull back out* this thread is way too hot for me, I'd rather not get involved. Let's just say that Rambus' business practices in the past were rather shady. Additionally, I am a strong supporter of open standards.
 
PhyberOptic said:
I want a Phantom console with RDRAM and running SCO Openserver and compressed with Microsoft DriveSpace! :D
Click to expand...

Speaking of SCO, what's the story w/their case against IBM? I haven't read anything about it recently.
 
Okay, a quick update to this thread.

I did some digging, as people say that RDRAM would be "outclassed by RDRAM, but you all might end up with XDRIM(what RDRAM has evolved to) in you PC's in the future ;)

Let's bring some updated info on the table:
SDRAM
Core speed=100Mhz
Clock frequence=100Mhz
Data frequence=100MHz

DDR
Core speed=100Mhz
Clock frequence=100Mhz
Data frequence=200MHz

DDR2
Core speed=100Mhz
Clock frequence=200Mhz
Data frequence=400MHz

XDR
Core speed=100Mhz
Clock frequence=400Mhz
Data frequence=3200MHz

Rambus XRD is a major sted forward.
The cells send date more than once per clock, like the quadpumped Intel FSB or AGP8x or the 2x with DDR and the 4x with DDR2
Via Octal Data Rate XDR is capale of transferring 8 bit data per clock at a frequnence at 3.2Ghz
These 3.2Ghz is then linked to the memoryinterface via a 16 bit bus and the with can be programmed to be 1, 2, 4 or 8 bit wide.
The real nifty thing about this is that these 16 bit busses can be comnbined and form a wide memoryinterface of 64, 128 or even 512 bit.
While a sinlge 16 bit channel XDR give 6.4GB/s, PSP3 is expected to use 4 of these parraelbusses, making a 64 bit memory with a transferreate of 25.6 GB/s

A 232 pin XDIMM, for PC's, wil have a 32 bit interface, so a singe stick would give 12.8 GB/s
Only GDDR3 exceeds this eg. the 1.55GHz memory on the X1900XTX can provide 49.6 GB/s
But XDR n the same 256 bit interface would deliver 102.4 GB/s :eek:
And GDDR# RAM for PC's are not expected untill in 2007.

And for lantency where DDR2 is ~66ns and GDDR3 ~68ns, the XDR have a 52.5ns on read and only 42.5ns on write.

There are ther cool technologies involved too.
Differrential Rambus Signaling Leves(DRSL) works the same way as Low Voltage Differential-SCSI(LVD)
Instead of using the difference between 0 Volt and a higher voltage, it compares 2 signal-lines and can makes 1's and 0's with a fluctuation af 200 mV.
The end result is improved preformance and lower powerconsumption.
That is the reason why nominel 3.2Ghz XDR can work with 1.8 Volt, just like DDR2.

Besides the memorycontroller(that have been a part of the memory sticks since the first RDRAM) Rambus has also launched it's own IO-bus called FlexIO, that will be integrated into Sony's Cell-CPU.
It's design is a bit like HyperTransport, but it is much faster.
I has a speed of 400-800Mhz and this bus can transfer 10 bit per cycle.
The end result is a celing of 8Ghz, that can deliver 76.8GB/s
On the PS3 the RSX-GPU can use the FlexIO to gain access to the XDR-memory the same way as NVIDIA's TurboCache and ATI's HyperMemory.

Rambus XDR RAM is in production.
Samsung has stated that they started making 256MB modules in January and that they will make 512 modules in mid 2006.
Toshiba, Sony, IBM and Panasonic have all required licenses as of this moment.
And the 3.2GHhz is just the beginning.
4GHz, 4.8Ghz, 6.4Ghz and 8Ghz are to follow...

Rambus has also annouced XDR2
Not only does this go above 8Ghz, but will also include "Micro-Threading".
This should boost preformanve even further in games ad 3D-visualisation.

So to all those that praise DDR2...
Watch out...you might end up with Rambus RAM affter all ;)

Terra - And DDR could be looked upon as the bad choice...wich it already was IMHO...
 
Terra said:
Watch out...you might end up with Rambus RAM affter all ;)
Click to expand...
April Fools Day was weeks ago.

XDR still has a 16-bit interface. Your 12.8GB/s for a 32-bit XDR RIMM (if that's what they would call it) is dual channel. DDR2-800 is being supported by both AMD (AM2) and Intel (965). Guess how fast dual channel DDR2-800 is? Yep, 12.8GB/s. What you're failing to understand is that fast and narrow design loses any latency edge because of the multiple transactions it takes to grab even a single 64-bit request with a 32-bit interface. And it's even worse for a typical cache line fill. That is why RDRAM came up short every time when compared to single or dual channel DDR having the same bandwidth.

Chance of dual channel DDR2-800 shipping: 100%. Chance of XDR shipping in any Intel/AMD PCs this decade: 0% (not one single PC chipset maker or AMD has announced future plans for supporting XDR).

Look at the PS3. That will ship with the fastest XDR memory subsystem ever made. How fast is it? 25.6GB/s. Even current PC graphics cards ship with twice that amount of bandwidth (1700MHz effective speed x 256-bit = 54.4GB/s) only using GDDR3. GDDR4 is sampling at nearly twice the speed already (> 100GB/s on a 256 bit bus).

BTW, nice to compare PC100, PC2100 and DDR2-400MHz to XDR 3.2GHz above. It really just shows that you don't understand what you're arguing since at minimum PC133, PC3200 and DDR2-667 are currently available.
 
Terra said:
AMD Licenses Rambus Memory Patents January 3, 2006

Terra - No need to be hostile...
Click to expand...
way to completely ignore what pcx said :eek:
stuff like this is exactly why i've given up on this thread. i know where i stand, along with everyone else, but one person. you're free to feel the way you do terra, and it's obvious we can't change your mind since if rdram is bad, you must have made a bad purchase a few years back, which can't be possible. ;)
 
Terra said:
AMD Licenses Rambus Memory Patents January 3, 2006

Terra - No need to be hostile...
Click to expand...
You really need to read your references, since they generally disprove your point.

"AMD hasn't actually licensed XDR – this is a patent license deal (similar to the deal we signed with Intel years ago) that gives AMD access to our patents, but it doesn't mean they have access to XDR," Linda Ashmore, a spokeswoman for Rambus, said in an email. "That would require a separate technology license. And, this patent license deal today is for controllers, not DRAM. There is a big difference between our technology license agreements and our patent license agreements."
Click to expand...
 
pxc said:
LOL

My last point was proven. You really don't understand what you're trying to argue. Keep searching for an Intel or AMD XDR announcement. I'll save you some time: there are none. AMD is switching to a DDR2 interface in AM2 and server sockets and Intel has been burned once by Rambus.
Click to expand...
indeed, socket F, AM2 and S1 will all be DDR2.. most likely F will either by replaced by another socket that has FB-DIMM support, or will be revised to include FB-DIMMs.
AM2 will be replaced by another socket for DDR3 (or it might be the same socket if ddr3 ends up being electrically compatible with ddr2. here's to hoping it will)
 
Time has told. Intel bailed the moment their Rambus contract expired and never looked back. AMD is betting on DDR2.

The sky is blue in my world. What color is it in your world? :D
 
Terra said:
512M bits XDR DRAM

And this will be it from me, untill further announcements...

Terra - Time will tell...
Click to expand...
Oh, new product? AWESOME! Something we'll NEVER use! w00t!

And anyway... How does that help you prove your point? It'll probably end up in yet another console that can't come close to PC performance.
 
Terra said:
512M bits XDR DRAM

And this will be it from me, untill further announcements...

Terra - Time will tell...
Click to expand...

So osmeone makes the chips. Point? There are no PC modules based on them. Won't be either. AMD isn't going to redesign the AMD64 to use XDR, and Intel has no reason to go back.
 
pxc said:
Time has told. Intel bailed the moment their Rambus contract expired and never looked back. AMD is betting on DDR2.

The sky is blue in my world. What color is it in your world? :D
Click to expand...


The contract didn't expire, Intel had to throw HUGE sums of money to get out of parts of the agreement if I remember correctly.
 
hardwarephreak said:
The contract didn't expire, Intel had to throw HUGE sums of money to get out of parts of the agreement if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
Which just goes to show... If Intel gives up money and runs away, holy shit!
 
hardwarephreak said:
The contract didn't expire, Intel had to throw HUGE sums of money to get out of parts of the agreement if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
Intel's RDRAM exclusive agreement expired on January 10, 2000, and Intel shipped their first native DDR P4 chipsets soon after. You are bringing up the renegotiated long term cross-licensing agreement. That is similar to what AMD did earlier this year with fixed quarterly payments. They are paying for the open standards rather than getting sued for much more.

Sadly, Rambus was able to scam those patents and this is the extortion they are able to extract from all SDR/DDR/DDR2/DDR3 memory and memory interface makers.
 
pxc said:
Sadly, Rambus was able to scam those patents and this is the extortion they are able to extract from all SDR/DDR/DDR2/DDR3 memory and memory interface makers.
Click to expand...


This goes against the evidence:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION
OFFICE OF ADMISTRATIVE LAW JUGES
Docket No. 9302

In the Matter of:
RABUS INC.
A CORPORATION
INITIAL DECISION
The evidentiary record demonstrates that:

(1) the EINJEDEC patent policy encouraged the early, voluntary disclosure of essential patents and Respondent did not violate this policy;
(2)the case law upon which Complaint Counsel rely to impose antitrust liability is clearly
distinguishable on the facts of this case;
(3) Respondent s conduct did not amount to deception and did not violate any "extrinsic duties " such as a duty of good faith to disclose relevant patent information;
(4) Respondent did not have any undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was a JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose;
(5) amendments to broaden Respondent's patent applications while a member of JEDEC were not improper , either as a matter of law or fact;
(6) by having a legitimate business justification for its actions, Respondent did not engage in exclusionary conduct;
(7) Respondent did not intentionally mislead JEDEC by knowingly violating a JEDEC disclosure rule;
(8) there is no causal link between JEDEC standardization and Respondent's acquisition of monopoly power;
(9) members of JEDEC did not rely on any alleged omission or misrepresentation by Respondent and, if they had, such reliance would not have been reasonable;
(10) the challenged conduct did not result in anticompetitive effects, as Complaint Counsel did not demonstrate that there were viable alternatives to Respondent's superior technologies;
(11) the challenged conduct did not result in anti competitive effects as the challenged conduct did not result in higher prices to consumers; and
(12) JEDEC is not locked in to using Respondent's technologies in its current standardization efforts.
For these reasons, Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden to establish
liability for the violations alleged.
Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED.
Click to expand...

Those are the summuary facts, I will return when I have read more about the patents(wich are also mentioned in this 350 legal document.)

And I ownder if people are saying that the one wuth the best layers always wins, even it they are not right, does this also aplly to when [H]ardOPC won the case about the Phantom Console?

Terra...
 
Being found legally innocent and doing underhanded, evil, nasty things are two totally different things in this country, terra. Just because you didn't break the law, doesn't mean you didn't cheat. Legal law isn't always moral law.
 
Now I am getting to the interesting parts:
142. During the early 1990' s Rambus s business model was well known in the industry.
Brett Willams, a JEDEC Solid State Technology Association ("JEDEC") representative for Micron testified that in 1992, "I knew it was [Rambus's business model to patent their
technology, and that's how they would gain their revenues. " (Wiliams, Tr. 857). Similarly, Martin Peisl of Infneon stated that he was aware of Rambus's business model in the early 1990' and expected Rambus to get patents to cover its technology. (Peisl, Tr. 4505).
Click to expand...

and

143. According to Andreas Bechtelsheim, formerly of Sun Microsystems, Rambus made very clear to Sun that it intended to seek patent coverage for all of its inventions and developments, and Rambus explained to various companies, including Sun, that it was seeking patent coverage for its inventions because it intended to obtain revenue or earn revenue through licensing its technology to both memory manufacturers and system manufacturers. (Bechtelsheim Tr. 5819).
Click to expand...

Terra - They knew...and then they cry foul later to the public..but under oath...different story :rolleyes:
 
Terra said:
(4) Respondent did not have any undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was a JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose;
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What part of shady don't you understand?

To make it simple for you, i'll also make a list:

1) Rambus attended JEDEC meetings, where OPEN SDRAM STANDARDS were being made.

2) Rambus never disclosed patents they were asked to disclose. The underlined part above is where Rambus is gloating that the JEDEC request was not binding.

3) While Rambus attended those JEDEC meetings, they were silently ammending their patent applications. Why? Gee, I think even you can figure that one out.

4) Rambus never brought up during their time at JEDEC meetings that anything being discussed may violate pending patents.

Rambus is shady because they broke the spirit of the open RAM standards meetings, didn't follow the requested rules and silently patented what they knew was going to be an open standard.

At this point you're either trolling or just can't understand even when it's spelled out for you. KTHXBYE, plonk!
 
pxc said:
What part of shady don't you understand?

To make it simple for you, i'll also make a list:

1) Rambus attended JEDEC meetings, where OPEN SDRAM STANDARDS were being made.

2) Rambus never disclosed patents they were asked to disclose. The underlined part above is where Rambus is gloating that the JEDEC request was not binding.

3) While Rambus attended those JEDEC meetings, they were silently ammending their patent applications. Why? Gee, I think even you can figure that one out.

4) Rambus never brought up during their time at JEDEC meetings that anything being discussed may violate pending patents.

Rambus is shady because they broke the spirit of the open RAM standards meetings, didn't follow the requested rules and silently patented what they knew was going to be an open standard.

At this point you're either trolling or just can't understand even when it's spelled out for you. KTHXBYE, plonk!
Click to expand...

Let me see if it is my english that is bad:
"Respondent did not have any undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was a JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose;"

Breaking it up:
When RAMBUS was a member of JEDEC it didn't have any patents or patenst applications that any JEDEC regulation required it to reveal...
This was a claim made by JEDEC, but if you read the testimoney on those Micron and Infinion employes, they knew about RAMBUS wanting to seek patents...
Your wording goes against testemony and the ruling, sorry...

Terra - And using "Argumentum ad hominem" dosn't make it any better...
 
The patent part is big and starts of like this:

168. Rambus filed patent application serial no. 07/510 898 (the ' 898 application) in the United States Patent and Trademark Offce ("PTO") on April 18, 1990. (CX 1451 at 1-2; Nusbaum, Tr. 1507).
The ' 898 patent application included a descriptive portion, called the "specification" that was sixty-two pages long, and included fifteen original drawings. (CX 1451 at 3-63, 140-50). The ' 898 patent application contained one-hundred fifty claims. (CX 1451 at 64- 125).
Click to expand...

It goes on to state the the patent jugde tol RAMBUS to make 10 claims, with one being the primary claim.
and it goes on like this:

173. Prior to June 1996, Rambus filed a total of seventeen continuation and divisional patent applications claiming priority based on the filing date of the original ' 898 application, and had been issued six United States patents on such applications. (First Set of Stipulations, Stip.22).

174. As of April 2003 , Rambus had fied sixty-three continuation and divisional patent
applications claiming priority based on the filing date of the original ' 898 application, of which ten were stil pending. (First Set of Stipulations, Stip. 22).
175. As of April 2003 , at least 43 United States patents had been issued to Rambus from
continuation and divisional applications claiming priority to the original ' 898 application. (First Set of Stipulations, Stip. 13).
Click to expand...

Terra...
 
Master [H] said:
Apparently, no matter what the facts, Rambus is going to be demonized, Terra.
Click to expand...

Yeah...
You can present testimony...it get's ignored.
You can present rulings...they get ignored.
As I see the real croock are JEDEC...
Remember that "plant" that was supposed to have been "destroyed"?
Or telling one thing to the public..and stating some totally different in court under oath.

I am reading about how Siemans(whose former semiconductor division is now Infneon Technologies) wrote to RAMBUS in 1990 regarding it's technologies..

128. Another question in the Siemens fax referenced Figure 13 on internal page 14 of the November 5, 1990 techncal description. (R 117 at 4). That figure showed dual-edge clocking or double data rate on the output. Dr. Horowitz s understanding was that Siemens's question related to the implementation of the double data rate drivers as shown in the November 5, 1990 technical description. (R 94 at 19; RX 117 at 4; Horowitz, Tr. 8546).
Click to expand...

Or how about Samsung:
101. In 1994, Samsung recognized that Rambus s inventions could be used in noncompatible Rambus parts, i.e. in parts without Rambus's proprietary bus technology. (CX 767).
Moreover, Rambus made it clear to Samsung that Rambus's intellectual property rights were not limited to the RDRAM product. (CX 2078 at 116 (Karp, Dep.
Click to expand...

And still RAMBUS is the "evil" one?!

And this is really worth reading throguh all the pages, look what this says:

166. Terry Lee, an employee at Micron, learned about Rambus technology in part from a meeting with Rambus held in 1995. (Lee, Tr. 6601-02). Following the meeting, he and a colleague, Kevin Ryan, reviewed selected patent abstracts. (Lee, Tr. at 6607-08). Lee concluded that the patents appeared to apply specifically to the RDRAM bus structure. (Lee, Tr. at 6610-11). In March of 1997, Lee expressed concerns to the JEDEC JC 42. 3 committee that a doubledata rate SDRAM ("DDR SDRAM") presentation "looked like" one of the Rambus patents he had reviewed in 1995. (Lee, Tr.6956-59).
Click to expand...

Even employes at Infinon thought something was "fishy"!!!!

Terra - The more I read the more public lies I see from Micron, Samsung, Infinon ect...
 
Terra said:
Let me see if it is my english that is bad:
"Respondent did not have any undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was a JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose;"

Breaking it up:
When RAMBUS was a member of JEDEC it didn't have any patents or patenst applications that any JEDEC regulation required it to reveal...
This was a claim made by JEDEC, but if you read the testimoney on those Micron and Infinion employes, they knew about RAMBUS wanting to seek patents...
Your wording goes against testemony and the ruling, sorry...

Terra - And using "Argumentum ad hominem" dosn't make it any better...
Click to expand...
'

Yes, they didn't REQUIRE them to be disclosed. Most companies there were disclosing, since it was an open standard. None of the rest of them went off and tried to patent what was discussed and created, only Rambus, who was trying to cut the market.

Of course rambus was looking for patents. Everyone wants patents. Doesn't mean you screw over your neighbor to get them.

Use your own argument on yourself, terra.
 
Master [H] said:
Apparently, no matter what the facts, Rambus is going to be demonized, Terra.
Click to expand...

Overpriced, underperforming hardware. Why wouldn't we demonize them? Now they're trying to make all of the rest of our DRAM purchases cost more.
 
lopoetve said:
Overpriced, underperforming hardware. Why wouldn't we demonize them? Now they're trying to make all of the rest of our DRAM purchases cost more.
Click to expand...


did you even read stuff like this?:
"166. Terry Lee, an employee at Micron, learned about Rambus technology in part from a meeting with Rambus held in 1995. (Lee, Tr. 6601-02). Following the meeting, he and a colleague, Kevin Ryan, reviewed selected patent abstracts. (Lee, Tr. at 6607-08). Lee concluded that the patents appeared to apply specifically to the RDRAM bus structure. (Lee, Tr. at 6610-11). In March of 1997, Lee expressed concerns to the JEDEC JC 42. 3 committee that a doubledata rate SDRAM ("DDR SDRAM") presentation "looked like" one of the Rambus patents he had reviewed in 1995. (Lee, Tr.6956-59).

And no wonder they where overpriced if Samsung was in on the scam...
I would like to see what soucers peole are using to to make RAMBUS the bad guys?
Cause under oath in a court of law Infinon, Micron, Sun, IBM ect. employes confirm RAMBUS's version?

Terra - I should have read that ruling a long time ago...
 
lopoetve said:
Yeah... blinded to reality. This thread is done, requesting a lock.
Click to expand...

Your are requesting a lock because testimony dosn't support you claims, but contradict them :confused:

Terra - Closing ones eyes for the facts, won't make them go away...
 
So let me get this straight.

Basically, in the early 90s, Rambus chose to join or atleast participate in JEDEC.

Most of the other companies signed NDAs to view Rambus' technology.

Around the same time, JEDEC was working on the SDRAM standard.

One of JEDEC's policies was that companies who held intellectual property, that desired to include it in a forth-coming standard, had to license that technology at a fair and reasonable cost.

Becaues Rambus didn't like this, and wanted to set their own costs and charge companies as they desired, they left JEDEC.

In the meantime, while JEDEC was discussing SDRAM, Rambus went ahead and began patenting technologies that JEDEC itself had been advancing for SDRAM, and th at Rambus had ultimately had no true part in.

Then, as SDRAM took off, Rambus began sueing companies for making use of its patents that it had unfaithfully patented (as these were designed to be relatively open patents, and for fair use by JEDEC members).

Many companies, including Samsung, quickly settled with Rambus by paying a certain amount of money and royalties.

Due to competing designs ultimately proving as good, if not superior, in many respects to Rambu's RDRAM, they began sueing companies again.

Of these, they turned around, voided the license, and sued what had been one of their strongest supporters and users (Samsung).

Hmm, it sounds like a lot of dirty-handedness and outright treachery by Rambus.
 
Oh, and providing statements from the heads of companies, acknowleding simply that they understood Rambus' business model, is far from providing evidence that those individuals knew that Rambus planned to go and patent what were to be JEDEC standards.
 
Terra said:
Your are requesting a lock because testimony dosn't support you claims, but contradict them :confused:

Terra - Closing ones eyes for the facts, won't make them go away...
Click to expand...
no, you're contradicting yourself with the evidence you provide. 2nd move to a lock
 
ToastMaster said:
So let me get this straight.

Basically, in the early 90s, Rambus chose to join or atleast participate in JEDEC.

Most of the other companies signed NDAs to view Rambus' technology.

Around the same time, JEDEC was working on the SDRAM standard.

One of JEDEC's policies was that companies who held intellectual property, that desired to include it in a forth-coming standard, had to license that technology at a fair and reasonable cost.

Becaues Rambus didn't like this, and wanted to set their own costs and charge companies as they desired, they left JEDEC.

In the meantime, while JEDEC was discussing SDRAM, Rambus went ahead and began patenting technologies that JEDEC itself had been advancing for SDRAM, and th at Rambus had ultimately had no true part in.

Then, as SDRAM took off, Rambus began sueing companies for making use of its patents that it had unfaithfully patented (as these were designed to be relatively open patents, and for fair use by JEDEC members).

Many companies, including Samsung, quickly settled with Rambus by paying a certain amount of money and royalties.

Due to competing designs ultimately proving as good, if not superior, in many respects to Rambu's RDRAM, they began sueing companies again.

Of these, they turned around, voided the license, and sued what had been one of their strongest supporters and users (Samsung).

Hmm, it sounds like a lot of dirty-handedness and outright treachery by Rambus.
Click to expand...

No.
1989 RAMBUS applies for patents for their idea's
1990-92 RAMBUS show their technologies under NDA to compaines like SUN, IBM, Simens ect.
The comapiens even write back, asking about more information about certains technologies.
RAMBUS want 1.5% in license to use it's technologies PREDATING 1989.
Some how a lot of those thechnologies finds it way into DDR RAM, but RAMBUS get's nothing.
Infinon had PAIDED UP...out of court ~$80 Mill.
Hynix got slapped +$300 Mill in court.

Employes at Infnion, Mircon, Sun, IMB confirms RAMBUS version under oath in court.

Terra - I think it's time to call in the mythbusters.... :eek:
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
no, you're contradicting yourself with the evidence you provide. 2nd move to a lock
Click to expand...

If that makes you day better...

Terra - Talk about not seeing the forrest for trees...
 
Terra said:
No.
1989 RAMBUS applies for patents for their idea's
1990-92 RAMBUS show their technologies under NDA to compaines like SUN, IBM, Simens ect.
The comapiens even write back, asking about more information about certains technologies.
RAMBUS want 1.5% in license to use it's technologies PREDATING 1989.
Some how a lot of those thechnologies finds it way into DDR RAM, but RAMBUS get's nothing.
Infinon had PAIDED UP...out of court ~$80 Mill.
Hynix got slapped +$300 Mill in court.

Employes at Infnion, Mircon, Sun, IMB confirms RAMBUS version under oath in court.

Terra - I think it's time to call in the mythbusters.... :eek:
Click to expand...

Wasn't Rambus not even established until 1990? If that's the case, how can it be that they were applying for patents in 1989, as well as wanting a 1.5% of licensing cost for technologies predating 1989.

Also, what about the fact that Rambus was patenting JEDEC SDRAM standards (which ultimately are the technologies that often ended up in DDR).

Remember a court found Rambus guilty of bad-faith in terms of its patents concerning SDRAM (as Rambus went behind JEDEC's back), and then a judge decided "bad faith" wasn't a proper verdict determination.
 
Terra said:
If that makes you day better...

Terra - Talk about not seeing the wood for trees...
Click to expand...
it's not about making my day better. i really don't give a damn anymore cause this all happened a while ago.
everything i see linked and shown indicates that rambus is the bad guy in all this. yes, there are bad things that JEDEC has done too, along with it's members, but the evidence seems to be in favor of JEDEC.
ontop of that, explain again how hynix paying up is a good thing for the consumer. that comment is what started all this. it turned into a performance arguement, which was nullified, and now back to legal again

this is "about the consumers", right?
unless paying more for hynix's fines so that rambus can line it's pockets is a good thing?
unless rambus is really in this for the money, and they don't actually have any solid products, why not just say "let the past be the past", and focus their energy on making new products that really blows the "inferior" JEDEC stuff out of the water?
 
ToastMaster said:
Wasn't Rambus not even established until 1990? If that's the case, how can it be that they were applying for patents in 1989, as well as wanting a 1.5% of licensing cost for technologies predating 1989.
Click to expand...

"Drs. Farmwald and Horowitz founded "Rambus Inc. " in March of 1990. (CX 545 at 5; RX 81 at 19). By 1992, its headquarters were located in Mountain View, California, in Silicon
Valley. (RX 81 at 1,3)"

But...

"In 1988, Dr. Farmwald conceived the general idea of a new memory interface and
protocol (an organization of the bits and timing of bits transferred by a memory chip) that would allow a single DRAM chip to have higher performance than a board Dr. Farmwald had designed containing 320 existing DRAM chips. (Farmwald, Tr. 8086-88)."

The Idea is from 1988...

Also, what about the fact that Rambus was patenting JEDEC SDRAM standards (which ultimately are the technologies that often ended up in DDR)
Click to expand...

"Trial in this proceeding commenced on April 30, 2003. The 54 day administrative hearing
produced a voluminous evidentiary record including 44 live witnesses, 1 770 admitted exhbits nearly 12 000 pages of trial transcript, and hundreds of pages of deposition transcripts.."

That says otherwise....

Remember a court found Rambus guilty of bad-faith in terms of its patents concerning SDRAM (as Rambus went behind JEDEC's back), and then a judge decided "bad faith" wasn't a proper verdict determination.
Click to expand...

You got any link to that...the legal documents, I'm trying ot learn how your justice system works? :)

Terra...
 
Terra said:
Your are requesting a lock because testimony dosn't support you claims, but contradict them :confused:

Terra - Closing ones eyes for the facts, won't make them go away...
Click to expand...

Wrong, because you can't read history and this is only going to become flame bait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top