PS3 XDR supply at stake?

[hugo]

What are they suing Samsung over? Use of RDRAM tech in DDR? Or price fixing of RDRAM to promote DDR takeup?

It's not just Samsung, it's GDDR-3, DDR-2, and so on. They claim those memory technologies infringe on their patents, so they want royalties for them.

What an easy way to earn a quick buck.Rambus is making themselves look cheap with all the lawsuits going on around them.

 

[Carl B]

I don't think that will be happening for many many years though jvd - whatever failings this company might otherwise have, the fact is they are a genius of memory design, and their IP tentacles spread everywhere.

how long before the patents expire ? haha

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

 

[jvd]

I don't think that will be happening for many many years though jvd - whatever failings this company might otherwise have, the fact is they are a genius of memory design, and their IP tentacles spread everywhere.

how long before the patents expire ? haha

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

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

 

[koldfuzion1]

They already got big paydays from their other lawsuits. Whether their patent schemes are ethical is questionable, but on legal grounds they have done VERY WELL

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...

 

[Carl B]

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.

 

[Acert93]

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...

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.

 

[koldfuzion1]

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.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Rambus does like suing).

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

 

[jpr27]

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. $$$$$$$

 

[PC-Engine]

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

 

[Andy]

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.

 

[PC-Engine]

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?

 

[Andy]

Apparently not:

Rambus has filed a lawsuit against Samsung for violation of it's patents related to SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, GDDR2, and GDDR3 and revoked it's licenses; XDR license to remain intact.
By Carl Bender - June 07, 2005

 

[PC-Engine]

Apparently not:

Rambus has filed a lawsuit against Samsung for violation of it's patents related to SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, GDDR2, and GDDR3 and revoked it's licenses; XDR license to remain intact.
By Carl Bender - June 07, 2005

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

 

[Carl B]

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.

 

[PC-Engine]

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.

ATI and DRAM industry leaders announce specification for GDDR-3

Next generation graphics DRAM specification available now

Monday, October 7, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARKHAM, Ontario - In a collaborative effort with the world's leading dynamic random access memory (DRAM) vendors, ATI Technologies Inc. (TSX: ATY, NASDAQ: ATYT) has announced the completion of the specification for the third generation of double data rate (DDR) DRAM for graphics, known as GDDR3.

While today's DDR DRAM allows for speeds of up to 400MHz, GDDR3 was designed to initially provide memory clocks of 500MHz, with headroom for up to 800MHz. GDDR3 is targeted for introduction in 2003.

"GDDR3 is the DRAM that will fuel the continued trend in graphics towards life-like virtual worlds," said Rick Bergman, Senior Vice President, Marketing and General Manager, Desktop, ATI Technologies Inc. "ATI is committed to leading innovation on the PC platform, and GDDR3 will allow us to continue to raise the bar and define the industry standard for computer graphics in upcoming product generations."

Over the past four years, advancements in DDR DRAM have allowed simple graphic accelerators that rendered primitive 3D worlds to evolve into Visual Processing Units (GPUs) that render life like cinematic worlds in real time as recently demonstrated for the first time with ATI's Radeon® 9700 PRO and ATI's FIREGL™ X1.

GDDR3 not only continues the trend for the graphics industry to be an early adopter of DRAM technology, but is the first DRAM designed specifically for a market before an industry standard is available.

"Our expertise in memory characterization and system implementation is enabling GDDR3 as the ideal high-speed DRAM for graphics," said Terry Lee, Executive Director of Advanced Technology and Strategic Marketing for Micron's Computing and Consumer Group. "We believe the significant performance advantages realized by this device will rapidly drive its adoption in the graphics arena. We expect it will then migrate into a broad range of applications."

"The graphics market has always been an early adopter of new DRAM technology," said Peter Schaefer, vice president, memory products for Infineon Technologies North America Corp. "Infineon has also led the way to bringing high speed memories to market. GDDR3 complements Infineon's development of the high speed graphics DRAMs that are used in today's cutting edge products."

Evolution of existing DRAM
Key to creating an ideal high-speed memory for graphics was the improvement in key technical areas such as high speed signaling that is important in designing DRAM for graphics, leveraging the work of JEDEC in defining DDR-II for the commodity memory market.

"As a technology leader in high speed DRAM, Elpida congratulates ATI on rallying and leading the industry in defining the GDDR3 specification," said Jun Kitano, director of Technical Marketing at Elpida Memory (USA), Inc. "Leveraging our experience in developing and manufacturing our DDR-II device, Elpida is happy to have collaborated with ATI during the definition stages, as GDDR3 fits into Elpida's plans to become a premier supplier of high speed memories to the graphics market in 2003."

"The graphics market is all about speed", said Farhad Tabrizi, Vice President of Worldwide Marketing at Hynix Semiconductor America. "As the leader in graphics DRAM, Hynix is committed to continue to provide high speed DRAMs to a market that values innovation in a timely manner."

Specification complete
With the completion of the specification late in the summer of 2002, DRAM vendors and users of high speed DRAMs can focus on the next step in the process of delivering products to market. GDDR3 will become available in 2003 and should continue to be an important inflection in graphics for years to come

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

 

[Carl B]

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.

 

[PC-Engine]

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?

SDRAM/DDR license? LMAO.

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

 

[Carl B]

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.