PS3 XDR supply at stake?

LOL - good question! Typically twenty years from date of issuance.

 

thats gotta be coming up soon .

I would think that these patents have to be from at least before edo ram or at the very least sdram which has to be over 10 years old now

 

Much as I hate the current patent system mess, the patenting of technology (as opposed to software and ideas) is really essential and if these companies have taken original ideas first presented/developed by RAMBUS, one can only say it's fair game. Those technologies are what gives XDR it's advantages over other memory technolgies, and compying them destroys XDR's competitive advantage.

The annoying thing is the games played. RAMBUS should have made their case before DDR was released, rather than wait 'til it's mainstream and then ask for recooperated losses. Plus the legal wrangling rarely, it seems, can be trusted to side with the legitimate side, but the better wrangled side. Plus many patents granted are imbecilic and don't actually satisfy the requirements of a patent.

Not knowing anything about XDR or DDR or the infringements I can't say if it's a fair patent or not, so I don't know whether Samsung and friends are getting their just desserts, or RAMBUS are just being gits.

 

I'm not so sure about that. From my Spring 2005 firm newsletter which happens to be sitting on my desk today: "On March 31, 2005, at the conclusion of four scheduled back-to-back trials, Judge Robert E. Payne held that Infineon proved by clear and convincing evidence that Rambus was guilty of unclean hands and spoliation. Rambus' conduct, including the false testimony of senior-level executives, was so egregious, the Court dismissed Rambus's patent infringement claims and allowed Infineon to preserve its monopolization claims and equitable claims for future use." The parade of horribles goes on but I won't get into it. Anyway, Rambus' track record so far isn't so hot as far as I can tell. (This case is at least 5 years old and still going...Rambus does like suing).

Rambus also has additional suits pending against Hynix and Infineon. The newsletter basically toots our firm's horn on how we kicked Rambus' butt at trial so I take it with a grain of salt, and this appears to be round 1 of 4. I have nothing to do with the Infineon case, (and have no knowledge of the Samsung case specificallY). I work in corporate, not IP litigation. Anyhoo regardless, more patent suits are good for business...

 

Infineon did settle with Rambus though on one of their cases; they have to pay Rambus $22 million over two years, with possibly up to $100 million more, and obviously are now licensees of the technology.

 

Yes, there was a recent case thrown out because Rambus did not file correctly and made mistakes.

But that is not the whole story. Rambus has been on a tear also with settlements against the DRAM makers for price fixing against Rambus. So the price fixing scandal was indeed true to appears and Rambus is making money because of it.

I do not know if the DRAM makers stole Rambus technology. But as much as I dislike Rambus, it appears the other memory makers are just as underhanded. This is not "honest business vs. dishonest business". It is a very ugly, cut throat business and it seems all of them would kill their own mothers if it ment higher profits.

 

Heehee that was good. Probably right, sounds like a real free-for-all.

 

They have to sue. They're an IP company without any real products...

 

Seeing the potential of not only how well the PS3 is expected to sell, but all of Samsungs future clients potential profits. Looks like Rambus is using these tactics as more of a "contract renegotiation" then just a law suit.

"Give me X amount of dollars for past costs and another x% to our original agreement in the future"

The point about the various manufacturers pricefixing does seem a bit underhanded. I guess this is Rambuses way of getting even

No doubt about this being a cut-throat business and neither side seems to like playing fair just about the bottom line. $$$$$$$

 

Samsung is not the only company making XDR for PS3...

 

I believe this will effect Xbox 360 more than it does PS3 considering XBox 360 will have twice the amount of DDR3 ram than PS3. XDR ram is not an infringement of a patent/s whereas DDR is.

 

Isn't GDDR3 part of JEDEC? Wasn't it developed by ATI and Micron?

 

Apparently not:

 

That doesn't sound right. Just because they THINK it's a violation doesn't mean it's fact.

 

Well if Samsung had licensed some form of GDDR3 tech to begin with from Rambus, obviously some aspect of Rambus' hold on GDDR3 is considered legitimate even by Samsung themselves.

 

Huh? GDDR3 itself doesn't violate any Rambus patents. Like I already said GDDR3 was developed by ATI and Micron Technology. What don't people get? This Rambus BS goes all the way back to SDRAM and DDR from JEDEC.

Read my lips....IT'S BULLSH*T!!!

 

I have no idea whether the SDRAM/DDR license Samsung had applied to the derivative technoliges as well, but the implication seems to be that it did - but who knows, maybe it didn't. Obviously they were licensing something. It doesn't matter if ATI and Micron developed it; as long as it's developed on derivative tech it's still fair game for Rambus - you know that right?

I'm not saying they'll win the case or they'll lose the case - I'm just saying that they have a case.

By the way I agree with jpr27's assessment of the situation above.

 

SDRAM/DDR license? LMAO.

Read my lips....J E D E C...IT'S ALL BULLSH*T understand?

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.