Rambus wins Nvidia patent dispute

Sikkyu

Sikkyu

I Question Reality
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
2,878
Check this out! doesnt look good for nvida right now.

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17390/1/

The ruling does note bode well for Nvidia, as it could even result in an import ban if the matter is not resolved soon. The company is gearing up to launch its heavily delayed Fermi graphics architecture and any further delays could only make a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...
 
Rambus has had case after case thrown out. Nvidia will simply appeal it to a higher system and they will throw this crap out right now.

If Rambus had won even a few of the absurd cases it has brought. Ram would be 3x as expensive these days.
 
its not about the ram itself, its about the memory controlers. and you may want to check your dates, this just happend today.
 
ETA on ATI and by that proxy AMD getting sued by Rambus?

Ahem, let me rephrase that. Is there anyone who HASN'T gotten sued by Rambus yet?
 
DeadSkull said:
ETA on ATI and by that proxy AMD getting sued by Rambus?

Ahem, let me rephrase that. Is there anyone who HASN'T gotten sued by Rambus yet?
Click to expand...

AMD/ATI were smart enough to license Rambus so they are not being sued.
 
hofan41 said:
AMD/ATI were smart enough to license Rambus so they are not being sued.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that you mean agree to a settlement since they couldn't afford to fight Rambus. I hope that this does get appealed. It's nice to see someone stand up against Rambus's shit.
 
Rambus shit? how is it shit, they own a product / patent and someone used it illegally?

I know rambus, people dont like them, but it doesn't give other companies the right to steal their technology and use it freely.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Rambus shit? how is it shit, they own a product / patent and someone used it illegally?

I know rambus, people dont like them, but it doesn't give other companies the right to steal their technology and use it freely.
Click to expand...

The reason people shit on Rambus is the 'patents' they hold are questionable to begin with and also the supposed unlicensed use is even more questionable.

That and the fact the company basically exists as a patent troll these days, neither making anything or innovating but choking down the market with frivolous litigation.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Rambus shit? how is it shit, they own a product / patent and someone used it illegally?

I know rambus, people dont like them, but it doesn't give other companies the right to steal their technology and use it freely.
Click to expand...

So you start filing lawsuits over three years after your product becomes an industry standard? Not to mention the shady jedec mettings.
 
Get your money rambus! Screw nvidia over, just like they screw us over with there high ass price.
 
I'm interested to see what happens in the long run with this.. but in either case, I'm sure Nvidia will be able to produce an alternative if they happen to lose.
 
][F][U][2][;1035238742 said:
Get your money rambus! Screw nvidia over, just like they screw us over with there high ass price.
Click to expand...

I didn't know Nvidia was in that market segment...

I guess they have to diversify somehow!
 
Zachstar said:
Rambus has had case after case thrown out. Nvidia will simply appeal it to a higher system and they will throw this crap out right now.

If Rambus had won even a few of the absurd cases it has brought. Ram would be 3x as expensive these days.
Click to expand...

You mean like they won this absurd case against one of the largest DRAM manufacturers in the world?

http://www.rambus.com/us/news/press_releases/2006/060424.html

Final ruling in the US on this issue (2009)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory..._Fully_Valid_and_Infringed_in_Hynix_Case.html

Or how the FTC has exhausted it's last option (the Supreme Court) trying to prosecute Rambus for monopolizing DRAM tech?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/23/us_supreme_court_rejects_ftc_rambus_case/

Face facts man: with the exception of the Micron case, Rambus already won. They've won before, and they will continue to win, because they are just that slick. Nvidia was just putting-off the inevitable. This ruling will probably not mean an import ban, but will mean Nvidia will pay royalties plus penalties (look at the Hynix case).

And yes, this is one of the two reasons DRAM prices have shot-up in recent years, and also a reason why capacities have not been improving as-of late. Kinda sucks that progress in the RAM world has been stifled now that we finally have a good 64-bit gaming platform.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
You mean like they won this absurd case against one of the largest DRAM manufacturers in the world?

http://www.rambus.com/us/news/press_releases/2006/060424.html

Final ruling in the US on this issue (2009)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory..._Fully_Valid_and_Infringed_in_Hynix_Case.html

Or how the FTC has exhausted it's last option (the Supreme Court) trying to prosecute Rambus for monopolizing DRAM tech?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/23/us_supreme_court_rejects_ftc_rambus_case/

Face facts man: Rambus already won. They've won before, and they will continue to win, because they are just that slick. Nvidia was just putting-off the inevitable. This ruling will probably not mean an import ban, but will mean Nvidia will pay royalties plus penalties (look at the Hynix case).

And yes, this is one of the two reasons DRAM prices have shot-up in recent years, and also a reason why capacities have not been improving as-of late. Kinda sucks that progress in the RAM world has been stifled now that we finally have a good 64-bit gaming platform.
Click to expand...


So tell me, how is the Micron v Rambus case in RI going? You know, the one that rambus was found of spoilation of evidence. Hence why the patent were declared unenforceable and now the patent office is going through them.......
 
figgie said:
So tell me, how is the Micron v Rambus case in RI going? You know, the one that rambus was found of spoilation of evidence. Hence why the patent were declared unenforceable and now the patent office is going through them.......
Click to expand...

I said they already won because the damage is already done. Even if they do eventually overturn this mess, the year will be 2030, and the damage to the industry will be long-passed.

The Micron case is a step in the right direction, but it's just one win in a sea of losses. It will take a lot of effort to stop that momentum and change the entire litigation front.

And no, I don't think the Rambus patents are valid (I believe the slimy fucks submarined them into JEDEC specs), but the courts have reason to think otherwise.
 
defaultluser said:
I said they already won because the damage is already done. Even if they do eventually overturn this mess, the year will be 2030, and the damage to the industry will be long-passed.

The Micron case is a step in the right direction, but it's just one win in a sea of losses. It will take a lot of effort to stop that momentum and change the entire litigation front.

And no, I don't think the Rambus patents are valid (I believe the slimy fucks submarined them into JEDEC specs), but the courts have reason to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

in this day and age of sending information to the other side of the world almost instantly, funny how slow the court systems are....

anyway I agree.

btw here is one thing on the micron case. If in fact those patents go out the door. Rambus will now get sued into the abyss for all "royalties" that are now back owed.....or in short. Rambus will be sued to bankruptcy.
 
This is sure to cause a delay in Fermi cards coming to market. Maybe Xmas 2010?
 
][F][U][2][;1035238742 said:
Get your money rambus! Screw nvidia over, just like they screw us over with there high ass price.
Click to expand...

you do realize, if Nvidia has to pay or if they had originally paid, it would drive prices higher right?
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
you do realize, if Nvidia has to pay or if they had originally paid, it would drive prices higher right?
Click to expand...

wrong, it might mean less profit or loss for nvda, not necessarily higher price. Adults with the proper IQ should understand that the price is decided by the supply and demand of the products.
 
A new memory technology needs to be created that the Rambus patents can't touch.
 
mafa said:
wrong, it might mean less profit or loss for nvda, not necessarily higher price. Adults with the proper IQ should understand that the price is decided by the supply and demand of the products.
Click to expand...

and when it costs more to supply? :confused:
 
mafa said:
wrong, it might mean less profit or loss for nvda, not necessarily higher price. Adults with the proper IQ should understand that the price is decided by the supply and demand of the products.
Click to expand...

Adults with proper IQ should also understand that Public companies have a responsibility first to their shareholders, and less profit is not acceptable, so higher prices, or lower quality will be the result.

BababooeyHTJ said:
and when it costs more to supply? :confused:
Click to expand...
 
mafa said:
wrong, it might mean less profit or loss for nvda, not necessarily higher price. Adults with the proper IQ should understand that the price is decided by the supply and demand of the products.
Click to expand...

No, the price is decided by humans who set them, else price fixing suits wouldn't be able to exist.. I don't believe in the magical price-setting fairy. :D
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Adults with proper IQ should also understand that Public companies have a responsibility first to their shareholders, and less profit is not acceptable, so higher prices, or lower quality will be the result.
Click to expand...

Remind me never to buy anything from any company you work for, own or operate.

I always thought the way to stay in business was to do the following edited version of what you wrote:

Adults with proper IQ should also understand that Public companies should aim to create the best product or a superior product than the competition at reasonable prices or prices /w respect to the superior quality of your product, while maintaining a good customer support and warranty service on your product as to encourage repeat business from past customers. IE, XFX's dual life-time warranty which creates a lot of repeat customers and some people willing to wait longer in queue times for a XFX 5870 rather than choose another brand. I agree, companies to an extent have a responsibility first to their shareholders as all shareholders want a ROI but companies that take the short cut route for quick ROI for shareholders often find themselves lagging behind in infastructure, technology and low QOS in the long run ultimately tarnishing and hurting their brand image.

Ex: The Cheap-o-cable-vision with 8 channels in HDTV and 240 SD channels. No need to update the infastructure to provide more hd channels, as we'll post higher profits this quarter if we don't as we wont have spent all that money on infastructure and as a CEO, I'll get a bigger bonus for more profit! How could we lose? 3 years later: 8 channels in Hd and 240 SD channels while DirectTV/Fios/etc has say 140 HD channels and you wonder why your subscribers are leaving your cheap-o-cablevision but if we invest in infrastructure, that'll be a smaller ROI in this quarter for shareholders and that's what's the first priority by your own words. Of course, if your a CEO and you get fired for all those lost customers and poor foresight, it doesn't really matter as you can take a bailout-package of 5-10x your salary as a severence package. Don't worry though, you've done your job well and would have gotten lots of bonuses. After all "responsibility first to their shareholders, and less profit is not acceptable, so higher prices, or lower quality". That's the way to make profit in the long run for sure!

Italics = sarcasim.
 
Last edited:
Digital Viper-X- said:
you do realize, if Nvidia has to pay or if they had originally paid, it would drive prices higher right?
Click to expand...

Yes, the same way ATI paying to lisence this technology caused ATI's prices to dramatically skyrocket sooo much that they completely lost the price to performance ratio with their 48xx series? and currently to this day its still vastly effecting the 58xx series such that you can hardly find a 58xx model for under $599.99? Oh...wait. They have a great price to performance ratio and have many card models for the 58xx series going as low as ...$79 dollars is it for the cheapest dx11 card?

Paying the lisencing fees wouldn't have made the prices much higher than they currently are unless they demanded the same amount of profit per unit. In reality, it's the CFO/Marketing teams/economists/buying the company who makes PhysX plus its development costs/monetary sums paid out to developers(NTWIMTBP program)/etc that are responsbile for high prices. If ATI can make great cards while paying the lisence fees with a price:performance ratio, why can't/wouldn't nVidia be able to?

Seems odd to claim that the lisencing fees for company a would cause high prices when company b already pays the liscening fee without those as-high prices or 'higher' prices as you feel would result.
 
WBurchnall said:
Remind me never to buy anything from any company you work for, own or operate.

I always thought the way to stay in business was to do the following edited version of what you wrote:

Adults with proper IQ should also understand that Public companies should aim to create the best product or a superior product than the competition at reasonable prices or prices /w respect to the superior quality of your product, while maintaining a good customer support and warranty service on your product as to encourage repeat business from past customers. IE, XFX's dual life-time warranty which creates a lot of repeat customers and some people willing to wait longer in queue times for a XFX 5870 rather than choose another brand. I agree, companies to an extent have a responsibility first to their shareholders as all shareholders want a ROI but companies that take the short cut route for quick ROI for shareholders often find themselves lagging behind in infastructure, technology and low QOS in the long run ultimately tarnishing and hurting their brand image.

Ex: The Cheap-o-cable-vision with 8 channels in HDTV and 240 SD channels. No need to update the infastructure to provide more hd channels, as we'll post higher profits this quarter if we don't as we wont have spent all that money on infastructure and as a CEO, I'll get a bigger bonus for more profit! How could we lose? 3 years later: 8 channels in Hd and 240 SD channels while DirectTV/Fios/etc has say 140 HD channels and you wonder why your subscribers are leaving your cheap-o-cablevision but if we invest in infrastructure, that'll be a smaller ROI in this quarter for shareholders and that's what's the first priority by your own words. Of course, if your a CEO and you get fired for all those lost customers and poor foresight, it doesn't really matter as you can take a bailout-package of 5-10x your salary as a severence package. Don't worry though, you've done your job well and would have gotten lots of bonuses. After all "responsibility first to their shareholders, and less profit is not acceptable, so higher prices, or lower quality". That's the way to make profit in the long run for sure!

Italics = sarcasim.
Click to expand...

Well Mr.Sarcasm why don't you educate us on how companies are run :)? Do you think items are made by the best suited manufacturer, or the lowest bidding manufacturer?
Oh hey, there is always Walmart, the LARGEST retailer in the world?

WBurchnall said:
Yes, the same way ATI paying to lisence this technology caused ATI's prices to dramatically skyrocket sooo much that they completely lost the price to performance ratio with their 48xx series? and currently to this day its still vastly effecting the 58xx series such that you can hardly find a 58xx model for under $599.99? Oh...wait. They have a great price to performance ratio and have many card models for the 58xx series going as low as ...$79 dollars is it for the cheapest dx11 card?

Paying the lisencing fees wouldn't have made the prices much higher than they currently are unless they demanded the same amount of profit per unit. In reality, it's the CFO/Marketing teams/economists/buying the company who makes PhysX plus its development costs/monetary sums paid out to developers(NTWIMTBP program)/etc that are responsbile for high prices. If ATI can make great cards while paying the lisence fees with a price:performance ratio, why can't/wouldn't nVidia be able to?

Seems odd to claim that the lisencing fees for company a would cause high prices when company b already pays the liscening fee without those as-high prices or 'higher' prices as you feel would result.
Click to expand...

ATI went a different route for their video cards, they stopped making Huge single chip monsters, which end up costing a lot, they probably realized, that 1, there is very little market for such chips, so they could supplement that market, with dual chip cards, aka the x2 cards without taking the risk of having bad yields making more complex large chips, such as nvidia is now having a problem with.


If only supply and demand dictate price, why are GTX285s still selling for $400 and 295s still selling for over $500? not only are the GTX295s and all X2 cards a SMALL / niche market, the cards are priced above what 99% of the computing population would spend on a computer, let alone a video card. So why don't we explain the supply / demand paradigm with that one :)?

Or hey! how about the 5850 and 5870 cards, supply sucked, demand was big, yet the price was not inflated much at all other then by e-tailers price gouging. High Demand, low supply low price? interesting!
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Well Mr.Sarcasm why don't you educate us on how companies are run :)? Do you think items are made by the best suited manufacturer, or the lowest bidding manufacturer?
Oh hey, there is always Walmart, the LARGEST retailer in the world?



ATI went a different route for their video cards, they stopped making Huge single chip monsters, which end up costing a lot, they probably realized, that 1, there is very little market for such chips, so they could supplement that market, with dual chip cards, aka the x2 cards without taking the risk of having bad yields making more complex large chips, such as nvidia is now having a problem with.


If only supply and demand dictate price, why are GTX285s still selling for $400 and 295s still selling for over $500? not only are the GTX295s and all X2 cards a SMALL / niche market, the cards are priced above what 99% of the computing population would spend on a computer, let alone a video card. So why don't we explain the supply / demand paradigm with that one :)?

Or hey! how about the 5850 and 5870 cards, supply sucked, demand was big, yet the price was not inflated much at all other then by e-tailers price gouging. High Demand, low supply low price? interesting!
Click to expand...

I usually dont post much but hey what the hell....

Publicly shared companies obviously want to make as much profit as possible... its about finding that right balance of revenue vs expenses. That being said, any shareholder in this economy is happy if their company is making any profit and staying above water. So yes, profits will be less, but at least there will still be profits.

Next, supply and demand is the only thing dictating prices of GTX285's . Supply and demand is the only thing that affects anything sold and purchased in the world. I could say end of story, but I'll elaborate just a bit. You see, enthusiasts are the minority, and enthusiasts are the only ones who will pay those prices. Those cards aren't for 99% of consumers. The average person, whether they have the money to spend on a GTX295 or a 5750, a lot of their decision is based on marketing. Nvidia's marketing department does a stellar job, just as Intel does when compared to ATI and AMD, respectively. What I mean by that is the general consumer will have heard more 'good' things about Nvidia than ATI, regardless of their actual performance. Another good business thing Nvidia does is, from what I have noticed, is not constantly change things. It doesn't leave enough time to maximize revenue from all the research and development. But when they do come out with a new design, they are able to tweak it little by little, while their R&D department continues to work on the next best thing. Case in point - 8800GTX to the 8800GTS G92 to the 9800GTX to the GTX285. They were able to go 3-4 years simply by tweaking/modifying their chip, maximizing profits - what the shareholders care about. They dont need lots of R&D expenses every year. Not saying its not the way to go, because ATI's way is profitable as well and is what I currently use. Just more than one way to make profits. So Nvidia's next design, Fermi, will be the next big thing and be able to last another 3-4 years. I'm tired of everyone complaining that Nvidia just rebrands things and lost their innovation. Its called smart business moves. They technically are still able to keep up the most of ATI's lineup at comparable prices (ie, GTX285 is just slightly slower than 5850, just gotta decide which features you want when purchasing).

And finally, with ATI 5850 and 5870, demand was big among the enthusiasts. Supply was small because it was a new design. Anyone who knows a thing about production businesses and manufacturing know that new designs start out slow to produce. Another reason is to test things to see how it sells... nobody can predict what demand will be like. Not to mention other economic factors such as low supply of parts to make the cards. So since supply was low and demand was high, prices sold for more than MSRP. I don't know how someone cannot understand that this is a textbook example of how supply and demand works, but whatever. Everyone believes what they want to believe.
 
*B* said:
I usually dont post much but hey what the hell....

Publicly shared companies obviously want to make as much profit as possible... its about finding that right balance of revenue vs expenses. That being said, any shareholder in this economy is happy if their company is making any profit and staying above water. So yes, profits will be less, but at least there will still be profits.

Next, supply and demand is the only thing dictating prices of GTX285's . Supply and demand is the only thing that affects anything sold and purchased in the world. I could say end of story, but I'll elaborate just a bit. You see, enthusiasts are the minority, and enthusiasts are the only ones who will pay those prices. Those cards aren't for 99% of consumers. The average person, whether they have the money to spend on a GTX295 or a 5750, a lot of their decision is based on marketing. Nvidia's marketing department does a stellar job, just as Intel does when compared to ATI and AMD, respectively. What I mean by that is the general consumer will have heard more 'good' things about Nvidia than ATI, regardless of their actual performance. Another good business thing Nvidia does is, from what I have noticed, is not constantly change things. It doesn't leave enough time to maximize revenue from all the research and development. But when they do come out with a new design, they are able to tweak it little by little, while their R&D department continues to work on the next best thing. Case in point - 8800GTX to the 8800GTS G92 to the 9800GTX to the GTX285. They were able to go 3-4 years simply by tweaking/modifying their chip, maximizing profits - what the shareholders care about. They dont need lots of R&D expenses every year. Not saying its not the way to go, because ATI's way is profitable as well and is what I currently use. Just more than one way to make profits. So Nvidia's next design, Fermi, will be the next big thing and be able to last another 3-4 years. I'm tired of everyone complaining that Nvidia just rebrands things and lost their innovation. Its called smart business moves. They technically are still able to keep up the most of ATI's lineup at comparable prices (ie, GTX285 is just slightly slower than 5850, just gotta decide which features you want when purchasing).

And finally, with ATI 5850 and 5870, demand was big among the enthusiasts. Supply was small because it was a new design. Anyone who knows a thing about production businesses and manufacturing know that new designs start out slow to produce. Another reason is to test things to see how it sells... nobody can predict what demand will be like. Not to mention other economic factors such as low supply of parts to make the cards. So since supply was low and demand was high, prices sold for more than MSRP. I don't know how someone cannot understand that this is a textbook example of how supply and demand works, but whatever. Everyone believes what they want to believe.
Click to expand...

The only time it sold at higher then MSRP was through certain e-tailers, (5870,5850) I was able to pick up 2 5850s for less then MSRP during this time,
so who dictated that price? How about the gtx 295, low demand as you and I both said very little people will buy it, yet it was priced fairly high, do Product costs NEVER factor into pricing? I find it hard to believe NV sold GTX295 cards for lower then production costs due to the low demand it had, how about the GTX285, still today selling for over $400 even though the demand is diminished.
 
Well its just that other people are willing to pay those higher prices. Not worth it to you and me but apparently other people are willing to pay the prices because they are still staying at the same price level. Product costs determine what price levels should be to start and to make profits, then supply and demand will find the price level that consumers (not all, but enough to justify the price) are willing to pay. If you were able to pick up 2 5850's for less than MSRP then I would guess you got lucky and also found a promotion such as Bing cashback, which is different because you still technically pay the high price but get credited back by a third party after paying. Because that 'only time it sold higher' was also the time it still sold out, so the higher prices were justified by people willing to pay the higher prices just to have one before supply ran out. Just the way I see it though and how I understand how economics and production work. I'm happy you paid less by the way, I wish I could say the same but I'm still happy with my purchase as I got better performance than a GTX285 still for less money.
 
*B* said:
Well its just that other people are willing to pay those higher prices. Not worth it to you and me but apparently other people are willing to pay the prices because they are still staying at the same price level. Product costs determine what price levels should be to start and to make profits, then supply and demand will find the price level that consumers (not all, but enough to justify the price) are willing to pay. If you were able to pick up 2 5850's for less than MSRP then I would guess you got lucky and also found a promotion such as Bing cashback, which is different because you still technically pay the high price but get credited back by a third party after paying. Because that 'only time it sold higher' was also the time it still sold out, so the higher prices were justified by people willing to pay the higher prices just to have one before supply ran out. Just the way I see it though and how I understand how economics and production work. I'm happy you paid less by the way, I wish I could say the same but I'm still happy with my purchase as I got better performance than a GTX285 still for less money.
Click to expand...

Thx :p I didn't buy em for me, but that's besides the point, it was an in store purchase for $289 Canadian each, and came with DIRT2, no cash back from bing or anything else.

I get what you're saying, but you just restated my own point
Product costs determine what price levels should be to start and to make profits, then supply and demand will find the price level that consumers (not all, but enough to justify the price) are willing to pay
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said, if NV has to pay $20/more per card, product costs go up, the price at which they begin to make a profit from their sales go up, then you can factor in supply and demand to see how high you can jack it up further.
 
Well maybe I didnt state it correctly, or maybe you are changing your point. Before you said that supply and demand didnt affect prices, only greed. Then you said product costs are the driving factor behind price of cards. But in reality, that small increase in product costs to an existing product will just mean less profits. They have already determined the price. If it was significant, then they would need their marketing department to cook up some very good explanations to customers of why the price suddenly went up. That's what I mean by start - initial selling costs. But if it was an added cost before production started, the end price to consumers wouldn't increase the same amount. In normal business practices, the company would eat part, if not most of the cost and just make that much less profit. But I always like to see a 50/50 split in those circumstances, where the price to consumers only increase by half of what the added cost to the company is. I think that would be fair, even though I wouldn't like the cost increase. But that's a moot point because I was originally talking about production costs only affecting price before products are mass produced, therefore the customer wouldn't know either way because they wouldn't know it was less expensive beforehand. But I see the your point, I just disagree and feel supply and demand controls current prices to consumers. If there is no demand, then companies will have to sell at a loss to even make any money to help offset the expenses, even if the money they make doesn't break even. $50 loss is much better than a $100 loss, but both are worse than profiting $100. So yes, current prices to the end consumer are controlled by supply and demand, product costs give a baseline of where to start and that's it. If people pay higher prices, then its supply and demand. If prices are lowered all over, then it's also due to less demand and too much supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top