More thoughts on Rambus.
When I closed this comment thread, I promised I would write further about Rambus and its legal issues. I’ve been meaning to do thorough research on the subject, but two things derailed me:
1) Life, as it’s prone to do, intervened. I got distracted with other projects and forgot to devote time to this topic.
2) I realized that I don’t really care enough about the Rambus affair to spend a couple of hours researching it.
Mind you, it’s altogether possible that the Rambus legal story really is interesting enough to merit hours of research by a disinterested non-lawyer who’s not specifically assigned to the story. Possible, I say — but so far I don’t see it.
What does intrigue me, though, is just how avid the response of Rambus defenders was as soon as the Rambus name was mentioned — even in a post that was originally about something else (i.e. the recent court ruling against SCO’s Linux copyright claims). No sooner had I opened the can of worms that is the Rambus story than the comment thread filled with claims and counterclaims — some of them very smartly done — about Rambus’s culpability, or lack of it, in its various patent lawsuits.
Mind you, as a blogger I’m not complaining, since more comments means more traffic for the blog and (generally) more fun for me as the conversation widens to more people. But it’s hard for me to understand why this particular company — and not a big company — draws so many impassioned responses.
So, Rambus defenders and detractors alike, help me to understand: What is it about this case, or this company, that so inspires your passion?
Category: Legal, TechnologyIf you liked this post, please consider subscribing to the RSS feed so you can receive future articles delivered to your feed reader.
4 Comments so far
Leave A Comment
It’s simple.
Rambus’ founders, two Stanford professors, invented fast memory 17 years ago. They taught big memory manufacturers how to make it, as a way to let them evaluate the technology and sign licenses if they wished. Big companies realized that this is how all memory would have to be built but.. they thought rather than paying this very small young company it would be much easier to just kill it. So they got together and unleashed a well funded campaign to crush it. They invited Rambus to JEDEC, incorporated its inventions into standards and then accused it of defrauding a standard setting organization. They called it a patent troll. They called in FTC. They colluded to fix memory prices (criminal conviction, 700M in fines). They price-fixed RDRAM out of the market and, having eliminated the competition, raised DDR prices 4 times. This is JEDEC-approved DDR which is actually using Rambus inventions, otherwise it wouldn’t be competitive with RDRAM. They shamelessly continue to incorporate additional Rambus inventions into the new standards, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR2,3,4, etc. because they haven’t been able to come up with anything better. All this time. Big memory companies stalled the progress, standardizing stolen, stripped down designs. The memory in your computer could have been 10 times faster, just look at Rambus’s XDR memory. If there were no Rambus, it would quite possibly be 10 times slower.
It’s about innovation and the drive to innovate. What made this country so strong.
It’s about big corporations stealing inventions from the little guy, undermining laws that protect him.
It’s about our judicial system, can it be bought? can it be tweaked? can it be influenced?
Or will it uphold the law.
You may consider this story not interesting enough, but you too have a stake in it. The story by the way could get pretty interesting next year, if not sooner. But if you don’t have time, it’s okay.
How’s that for an impassioned response?
Thanks, matam, for the great start to this comment thread.
I should clarify something: it’s not that I don’t get what the issues are at stake here. Rambus and its supporters hold the view you’ve expressed here. Its detractors (accurately or not) hold the view that Rambus gamed the JEDEC system to put the big memory makers over a barrel. Those are questions of fact and interpretation that are at the heart of the various legal cases. So far, so good, and you’ve done a good job of presenting the pro-Rambus side.
But *here’s* the deeper issue I’d also like to hear about: How did the Rambus issue become an ax for you to grind? I’m not suggesting it’s an inappropriate cause to support, but just by observation there are a lot of other injustices in the world, in the business world and beyond. So how did this *particular* issue come to hold your attention?
Matam? Anyone else?
It was an investment. A well researched (or so it seemed) investment in the company that solved the memory bottleneck problem that has been bugging the industry for quite some time. A problem that was only going to get more severe as processors got faster. Why do you think Intel picked Rambus’ RDRAM as the exclusive memory for Pentium 4, doesn’t it look like an overly risky move to you? The world’s largest chipmaker bets its success on a smallish IP company with proprietary memory design. The reason is simple – they had no choice. They had been asking memory makers for faster memory, got nothing. Rambus was the only one with a solution. Memory makers promised Intel to produce whatever RDRAM that was needed but apparently they had something else in mind. They didn’t want to cede the control of the industry to Intel-Rambus and become simple foundries. So they started pushing “their own” DDR. Collusively they sold it below production price losing billions, while keeping RDRAM supply low and the price high. In the end Intel gave up and decided to switch to DDR. Then, also unexpectedly, Rambus was convicted of fraud in Virginia (by a judge who apparently got everything wrong, intentionally or not; the verdict was completely overturned later). I lost most of what I’d invested. The whole thing seemed astounding.. I started to dig. As I learned more about what happened this issue became more than just an investment. Small company that contributed so much was being ambushed in broad daylight. And nobody seemed to care. I’m glad that they have been able to survive, while still innovating. I’m waiting for the day when they get their due. That’s when I’ll bury my ax.
As to detractors, more often than not, I hear them blindly echo accusations and insinuations that used to be disseminated by memory cartel-sponsored media outlets and “research” shops. It’s easier that way. No need to read court proceedings, study laws, understand the technology. Just point and say the magic words: they defrauded the industry! they try to rob the consumers! they listened and they quietly modified their patents! patent ambush! patent troll! This mantra has been repeated countless times and it is readily consumed. That is where detractors’ research tends to end.
Couple of things to note:
- many JEDEC members were taught this technology under NDAs in the early 90s, before they invited Rambus to join JEDEC. Now they claim that they weren’t aware of Rambus inventions and that Rambus somehow sneaked them into the standard.
- patent laws allow and actually encourage adding claims to your patent *IF* they are supported by the original invention description. Rambus saw that pieces of their inventions were being incorporated into the standard by the very JEDEC members they’ve taught, but couldn’t say anything as they weren’t awarded the patents yet. The only thing they could do was to describe that additional use of their inventions in the new claims. All these pieces were described in the original 1990 patent application. JEDEC members had the original invention description all along.
Here is the decision by FTC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge S. McGuire, the result of the longest and most expensive investigation in FTC history: http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/040223initialdecision.pdf
Read it if you find time, all the facts are there. Decide for yourself what happened. I’d be curious to read your thoughts then.