Mannerisms

I have long since learned that no one pontificates on this or any financial argument in terms other than those that support his own financial interest. In that case I might be biased but the reading that I have done reassures my moral self that owning Rambus stock, as I do, is suppotive of the good guys in this argument.
This article seems to concede the position that Rambus held legal patents but would not negotiate reasonable royalty rates. Neither myself or the protagonist in this article were there for those negotiations so neither of us can say what they were like. I doubt that Rambus was unreasonable and it is Rambus's contention that the dram manufacturers conspired to keep rambus chips (RDRAM) off the market by perpetrating the falsity that they were too expensive. After accomplishing that,
they were subsequently fined by the FTC for collusion in fixing prices of their own chips, which by the way included Rambus technologies.
Their own internal communications reveal the intention to "litigate Rambus to death.' jns

With my hand on my heart I can say I do not own, nor have I ever owned, any shares in Rambus or in any DRAM company.
My only knowledge of Rambus' fee structure comes from industry analysts who look at the semiconductor industry and have for long held the opinion that a normal industry royalty rate would have been swallowed by the DRAM companies.
It always seemed to me a sad thing that this could have rumbled on for so long. The semiconductor industry is full of very intelligent people who can usually be relied on to come to reasonable judgments. Resorting to the courts shows that something went drastically wrong between Rambus and most of its potential customers and I have always been led to believe it was the level of the fees which was the breaking point.
Having said that, Rambus has had a very cordial relationship with Toshiba, its first licensee, for many years.
Why, I wonder, could Rambus have had such a happy experience with Toshiba, and such an unhappy one with almost everyone else?

Hey, How can I get a job like you? You obviously know nothing about Rambus and yet write some crap a Micron employee gave you! Do some research. Rambus has been the victim all along in this saga. Micron, Samsung, Hynix, Infinion (Quimonda), Nanya and others have all pled guilty to DRAM price fixing. Why did they fix prices? To kill Rambus. The AT trial tentatively set for February will shed some light on these cartel thieves.

"Basically because it asked for royalties that were too high for an industry which is notoriously cyclical and cash-strapped....

Former Intel CEO Craig Barrett, once walked away from a business arrangement with Rambus saying they were trying to impose a tax on the DRAM industry."

---------------
David,

There have been several trials where sworn testimony has spoken to your 'facts'. Please take the time to READ the trial and appelate transcripts. This is what the record says:

Small creative firm (2 Stanford profs, actually!) invents the foundations of modern memory/interface technology.

Briefs and teaches ALL memory makers on its inventions with an eye to licensing under RAND.

A conspiracy to kill Rambus and steal its inventions ensues.

Micron, under an amnesty agreement, whistled Federal price fixing collusion on RDRAM vs SDRAM resulting in$800mm in fines and 15 executives serving 3 to 9 months of hard time.

Conspiracy has continued to this day under the guise of patent litigation.

Throughout all this drama, Rambus has either won the day at judgement or later, on appeal.

PLEASE READ THE SWORN TESTIMONY. DO THE RESEARCH!

Dear Macchiusif, The odd thing about the Rambus saga is that it is the only subject I have written about in 30 years writing about the chip business which has generated abusive responses. I've been wrong, I've been silly perhaps, and people have pointed this out calmly, logically and fairly, but with a Rambus story I, and others in the press, get abusive comments. Why is this?
Also, I don't think the DRAM manufacturers' price-fixing was an aggressive move against Rambus, it was just a move to make profits. How could price-fixing hurt Rambus?
Regards
David

Dear Pk de Cville

Yes I know the history. In the days when I used to go to ISSCC every year, Mark Horovitz always had several papers in the proceedings. As well as being totally brilliant, he was approachable and helpful on the times I've met him. So I very much admire him, and what he's done, and feel it's a pity that the Rambus business managers, egged on by investors, have created such a dreadful legal mess of licensing the technology.

I think everyone knows that lawyers can keep fights going for as long as people are prepared to pay their bills, and the arguments on both sides will keep on coming. But if people feel they have a fair deal they don't litigate and, from what I hear, Rambus simply asked higher than usual licensing fees and, when the industry refued to pay, sued all its potential customer base.

Not exactly a sensitive way to do business.

And I fail to see what price-fixing has to do with the patent issue. Surely price-fixing and patent infringement are unrelated issues?

Regards

David

"HOW COULD PRICE FIXING HURT RAMBUS?"...well, for starters, let's quote Micron vice president linda turner from her June 2001 email: ""...We want DDR to explode into the marketplace so have actually been requesting Infineon, Samsung and Hynix to lower their DDR pricing to help it become a standard (and drive Rambus away completely)."....DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION?????....HOW can people write about Rambus and seemingly know so little about the history?

Dear Nate, One of the DRAM technologies which Rambus claims to have invented is DDR. Indeed it is DDR which has been subject to most of the litigation (I don't think anyone has ever disputed Rambus' invention of RDRAM). So, if the argument is all about DDR, and whether DRAM-makers should pay a royalty on DDR, then how on earth is that argument affected by the market price of DRAM (fixed or otherwise)?
Regards
David

David,
the point of the memo from micron VP linda turner, which I quoted, is it shows the manufacturers were price fixing ddr lower to make it much cheaper than the Rambus alternative, RDRAM...this effort was successful on the manufacturer's part, as it essentially drove RDRAM out of the marketplace...Rambus has a lawsuit proceeding against the manufacturers (the anti-trust, AT, lawsuit) which currently has a start date pencilled in of about Feb 2009...that's where the manufacturers will answer for their price fixing and other activities targeted against Rambus and RDRAM...now on your DDR points and questions, Rambus has never claimed to invent DDR, but they do own several patents which are used by the JEDEC standard DDR...Judge Whyte's court has already found that the Rambus patents in question are valid and DDR and SDRAM infringe upon those patents...the manufacturers tried to counter that Rambus acted illegally by "hiding" the fact that they had these patents...Judge Whyte's court also found that Rambus did nothing illegal or anything else that would effect the enforceability of their patents...a similar decision to this was also recently upheld by the CADC when they over turned the FTC decision against Rambus, clearing Rambus in that arena...finally, today, the CAFC has ruled in a similar fashion against an EDVA district judge's opinion, once again clearing Rambus of any wrongdoing...you can reference all these legal decisions at the Rambus site here: http://investor.rambus.com/downloadcenter.cfm

Hi, I recently found your blog - thank you for writing. I wanted to inform you that it's not showing up correctly on the BlackBerry Browser (I have a Tour). Either way, I'm now on your RSS feed on my laptop, so thank you!

David,

You really are not well versed in the Rambus saga, neither its history nor litigation.

This case is so very complex because it was made that way by those profiting from Rambus' intellectual property. At the heart of this country, particularly since manufacturing has been sent overseas, is intellectual property - idea, inventions, creations. Without a proper mechanism to safeguard that asset the whole enterprise suffers. Innovation is front-loaded when it comes to costs - big money players use that to their advantage by using the cost of litigation as a remedy as a disincentive to claim what is rightfully yours. Fortunately, Rambus has been able to afford to fight the giant usurpers of it's property.
You concede the patents are valid - that's great. It took Rambus many years and millions of dollars to get even that far. Now you blithely attribute their litigation as a consequence of their greed in terms of licensing terms. well, licensing negotiations fall apart all the time - there are business solutions and market solutions to that problem. What is alleged here is coordinated conspiracy to steal the ideas and then eliminate the inventor.
The issues are in court - that's what courts are for. Don't denigrate the litigant based on your shallow analysis, and don't trash the legal system for being available to litigants.
The investors in this company know what is at stake - that's why they're ardent investors and vocal supporters. They've been subject to adverse rulings, crummy press, and every dirty trick in the book to deny them what they believe is rightfully theirs.
I do believe it would be wise for you to invest the time and due diligence necessary to become fully versed in the history of this sage before expounding upon the particulars. The principles at stake here are critically important for future of the American economy, so let's all get it right.