DailyTech - Rambus Sues NVIDIA for Patent Infringement

Submit News

Hardware Rambus Sues NVIDIA for Patent Infringement
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - July 11, 2008 2:42 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

56 comment(s) - last by emboss.. on Jul 13 at 11:14 PM

Rambus says NVIDIA products infringe on 17 Rambus patents

Rambus is no stranger to the world of patent infringement suits. Today it announced that it filed a patent infringement suit against NVIDIA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit alleges that NVIDIA infringed upon Rambus patents with a variety of its products including NVIDIA products with memory controllers for SDR, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR, and GDDR3 SDRAM. In all Rambus alleges that NVIDIA has infringed on 17 Rambus patents.

Rambus said that it pursued licensing agreements with NVIDIA for years with no agreements being made. Rambus wants injunctive relief barring further infringement, contributory infringement, and inducement to infringe the patents in question. Rambus also seeks monetary damages for the alleged infringement.

Tam Lavelle, senior VP and general counsel for Rambus said, “For more than six years, we have diligently attempted to negotiate a licensing agreement with NVIDIA, but our good faith efforts have been to no avail. Graphics and multimedia products require leading-edge memory performance, and as NVIDIA advances its product portfolio, it infringes more and more of our patents. We are left with no other recourse than litigation to protect and seek fair compensation for the use of our patented inventions. Nevertheless, we hope to continue discussions with NVIDIA to reach a negotiated settlement.”

According to Rambus, the vast majority of NVIDIA products going back for years infringed on its patents. If NVIDIA loses the suit in court it could be looking at a significant penalty, possibly ever more than the $306.9 million.

NVIDIA is already feeling pressure from investors and analysts after announcing disappointing profits last quarter, a loss in this case could make things even worse.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Frazzle on 7/11/2008 3:04:29 PM , Rating: 3

Their cashflow must be low again.

Do they make money any other way?

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By vapore0n on 7/11/2008 3:39:45 PM , Rating: 4

I though rambus went down when their rambus ram failed.

Maybe they should have gone down, to prevent them from becoming patent leeches

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By RMSe17 on 7/11/2008 3:56:37 PM , Rating: 2

Their ram was used in some game consoles since then

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Clauzii on 7/12/2008 1:38:40 AM , Rating: 3

Not was, ARE. The PS3 achieves it's 25GB/s bandwidth thru use of RAMBUS technoligy, called XDR, Xtreme Data Rate.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Lightnix on 7/12/2008 9:09:06 AM , Rating: 2

That's not so "xtreme" - in fact it's not very "xtreme" at all, even the 6800 GT had 32GB/s bandwidth.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Clauzii on 7/12/2008 2:33:17 PM , Rating: 2

Theres a BIG difference of Graphics Memory and normal memory. You can't compare those two. You COULD say that the GPU memory is low at 25GB (a little more than an old Radeon 9800Pro) but also the CPU gat's this 25 GB bandwidth, which is at least double the speed as a normal PC memorysystem.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Lightnix on 7/12/2008 4:07:05 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah I know, just a light hearted comment.

Still, your response provoked me and I did a little reading, came up with these numbers:

* 128-bit memory bus width
* 22.4 GB/s read and write bandwidth
(copypasted off wiki)

The memory configuration for the RSX, the GeForce 7800-a-like GPU in the PS3.

Surely the thing must be crippled?

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Clauzii on 7/13/2008 9:11:26 PM , Rating: 2

Totally, but I was talking CPU-RAM relationship. No PC achieves that speed yet.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By emboss on 7/13/2008 11:14:14 PM , Rating: 2

Depends on how you define "PC". A dual Opteron system will hit circa 25 GB/sec. A dual Xeon (eg: Mac Pro) will do ~21 GB/s if you feed it right. In the non-x86-world, a dual UltraSPARC T2 can do 64 GB/sec in theory, though I haven't seen any real-world numbers on it yet.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Solandri on 7/11/2008 4:02:22 PM , Rating: 5

They hedged their bets by subverting JEDEC and tricking it into incorporating stuff that they were secretly awaiting patents on. That way if RAMBUS memory failed (as it did), they could then hit up all the other major memory players for patent infringement. It wouldn't have worked, except the other memory companies are also bastards who play dirty, and ticked off the judge in their case.

Eventually we're going to end up with a system so encumbered with patents and copyrights that nobody can develop anything new without paying outlandish royalty fees. Development will grind to a halt as a tiny fraction of the population will have essentially imposed a tax on modern living payable to themselves.

Then some upstart country will choose to ignore all that Intellectual Property and become the new technology leader of the world. That's what the U.S. did to the U.K. during the early industrial revolution. My bet right now is that's what China is going to do to the U.S. unless the U.S. wakes up and starts pounding some common sense into all these people worshiping the cult of IP. IP is supposed to benefit both the originators and society, not just the originators. When the originators are able to hold back society through their IP, it means IP law has shifted too far in their favor.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By gerf on 7/11/08, Rating: -1

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By codeThug on 7/12/2008 9:43:39 PM , Rating: 3

You dare mention slashdot on this site? 50 lashes and -100 mod points you cretin :)

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By cbf on 7/11/2008 5:04:11 PM , Rating: 3

Rambus has now been exonerated from the charge of "subverting JEDEC" by three separate courts. The most Rambus may have done is keep their mouths shut while JEDEC adopted technology that Rambus has patents *pending* on. The courts that exonerated Rambus did so because they interpreted the wording of JEDEC's patent disclosure rules as only covering granted patents, not pending patents.

Note that Rambus did *not* suggest or in any way suggest that JEDEC adopt these technologies. In most cases (as the FTC administrative law judge ruled), there were really no alternatives. And yes, Rambus has essentially patented virtually all the ways of implementing high speed memory (except perhaps the bad ones -- e.g. FB-DIMMs).

Furthermore, many of the members of JEDEC actually knew about Rambus technology because they were in licensing discussions with Rambus and seen Rambus technology under non-disclosure agreements.

There is also clear evidence that the "failure" of Rambus RDRAM was almost entirely due to illegal collusion on the part of the major memory vendors to keep it out of the market -- this is legal fact: http://www.edn.com/article/CA6333724.html, and the participants (Hynix, Infineon, & Samsung) pled guilty and paid a $160M fine (at the time, the 2nd largest criminal antitrust fine in US history). Rambus' civil anti-trust case against those companies is pending.

I'm not a big fan of what patent law has done in software, but if the law is going to be what it is, then companies like Rambus with legitimate hard patents, ought to be entitled to get their due instead of being strung out by the courts for a decade.

Btw, I think AMD/ATI has not been sued because they've had a Rambus license for some years.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Some1ne on 7/11/2008 5:16:16 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
The most Rambus may have done is keep their mouths shut while JEDEC adopted technology that Rambus has patents *pending* on. The courts that exonerated Rambus did so because they interpreted the wording of JEDEC's patent disclosure rules as only covering granted patents, not pending patents.

So because of a technicality, Rambus's actions were therefore just?

That may get them off in the legal sense, but it doesn't mean that Rambus's behavior is even remotely acceptable.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Murst on 7/11/2008 5:29:13 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
So because of a technicality, Rambus's actions were therefore just?

What actions do you believe were unjust? Please provide a reasonable alternative to JEDEC's proposal that would not use technology developed by Rambus.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Some1ne on 7/11/2008 5:58:17 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
What actions do you believe were unjust?

1. Filing lawsuits against companies following JEDEC specifications when Rambus knew full well from the beginning that the specs were going to end up including things patented by Rambus.

2. Not voluntarily speaking up during the initial drafting process as soon as it was noticed that the JEDEC proposal included things that Rambus was already in the process of patenting.

Because Rambus didn't do the second thing, as far as I am concerned they have forfeited their right to do the first thing. If they had objections to having their patented work be part of the JEDEC guidelines, and to having other companies follow those guidelines, then they should have voiced their dissent during the drafting process. If they had done that, and JEDEC had still chosen to include Rambus's patents in the specifications, then they'd have a justification for filing their lawsuits. However, because they quietly went along with it, knowing full well that their pending patents were being drafted into the specs, they have no right to be complaining about it now, and they certainly don't have any right to be trying to profit from their actions.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By omnicronx on 7/11/2008 7:55:03 PM , Rating: 2

All of which is probabably a big reason as to why Nvidia has not bothered paying any licensing fees. They probably assume they will get off of any suits laid against them.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Solandri on 7/11/2008 5:40:38 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
Rambus has now been exonerated from the charge of "subverting JEDEC" by three separate courts. The most Rambus may have done is keep their mouths shut while JEDEC adopted technology that Rambus has patents *pending* on. The courts that exonerated Rambus did so because they interpreted the wording of JEDEC's patent disclosure rules as only covering granted patents, not pending patents.

That may be the correct legal interpretation of the rules as written, but is obviously wrong by any common sense interpretation. Why would a standards organization write up rules requiring disclosure of granted patents, but not of pending patents? The rules were there so everyone would know if an adopted standard might lead to future patent problems. The court's interpretation used the letter of the rules to violate the spirit of the rules.

quote:
Note that Rambus did *not* suggest or in any way suggest that JEDEC adopt these technologies. In most cases (as the FTC administrative law judge ruled), there were really no alternatives. And yes, Rambus has essentially patented virtually all the ways of implementing high speed memory (except perhaps the bad ones -- e.g. FB-DIMMs).

Which was the whole point of the JEDEC rules - to let everyone know of potential future encumbrance by patents before adopting a standard. If there truly had been no alternatives to Rambus' patents, then Rambus should have had no problems with revealing their pending patents - JEDEC had to use them, right? That Rambus did not do so indicates the judge erred.

quote:
There is also clear evidence that the "failure" of Rambus RDRAM was almost entirely due to illegal collusion on the part of the major memory vendors to keep it out of the market -- this is legal fact

That's legal conjecture, not fact. The closest thing to facts I saw were complaints by Intel engineers tasked with trying to implement RDRAM. In one case they said it was impossible to implement because a signal had to be read before the event generating the signal had even happened:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_43_...

RDRAM failed because it was impractical to implement at the engineering level. Sometimes (actually, often) the simpler less effective design is just a better choice than the more effective but complicated design. Once the engineering realities became clear, of course all the companies would try to steer clear of it. The court chose to ignore the engineers and interpreted this as industry collusion.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By nah on 7/12/2008 5:25:06 AM , Rating: 2

what was unethical was Rambus signing a deal with intel to make sure that their ram was standard on all new intel chipsets (after SD)--both companies would make a killing (intel thru stock options). The end result--chipsets like the 820-engineering decisions should never be left to marketing/finance depts. Other RAM manufacturers struggle to get high yields--if they had really tried to get it out of the market--why would the prices have fallen from a premium of over 200 % of SDRAM to only 20 % by late 2002 ?

Your link states that the manufacturers paid money because they tried to increase DRAM prices--not RDRAM--increasing DRAM prices would have actually helped RDRAM beacuse SDRAM prices would be higher

quote:
The settlement closes cases that go as far back as 1999 claiming the memory companies conspired to drive the price of DRAM up, profiting themselves but harming the PC industry.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Chadder007 on 7/11/2008 4:46:44 PM , Rating: 3

I'd like to see someone counter sue a Patent Leech for Mental Anguish.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By retrospooty on 7/11/2008 4:02:41 PM , Rating: 5

Yes... All your patents are belong to (ramb)US.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By MrBowmore on 7/11/2008 6:56:46 PM , Rating: 2

How do you rate? I cant find anywhere how to rate this higher.

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By quickk on 7/11/2008 10:10:22 PM , Rating: 2

You can't rate a post if you have yourself posted. Also, you can't rate a post "worth reading" if it already has a "5". Similarly, you can't rate a post "not worth reading" if it's already at "-1."

Parent

RE: Rambus cooking up more torts?

By Locutus465 on 7/11/2008 5:37:23 PM , Rating: 2

What's interesting is what the lawsuites are for... I thought it was already proven Rambus can't make claims for SDR and DDR memeory controllers (not to mention DDR2 etc). Why do I get the feeling they're testing the waters trying to see if they can't grab the entire memory industry by the figurtive balls again.

Parent

All I can say is...

By Motoman on 7/11/2008 2:49:07 PM , Rating: 2

...wow. Nvidia can't buy a break these days.

Not that I want to see Nvidia suffer, but if AMD can capitilize on their competitor's troubles, it may help pull them up out of the mud.

RE: All I can say is...

By goku on 7/11/2008 2:53:12 PM , Rating: 2

More like Nvidia will get kicked into the mud, only to be struggling much like AMD is right now. If the economy continues its current trend, things are going to be pretty bleak for these companies in the coming years.

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By othercents on 7/11/2008 3:20:21 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
More like Nvidia will get kicked into the mud, only to be struggling much like AMD is right now.

Perfect time for Intel to come out with a killer video card?

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By vapore0n on 7/11/2008 3:37:24 PM , Rating: 5

Intel...killer video card...

lol

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By TheGee on 7/11/2008 5:49:21 PM , Rating: 2

W O W !!

Intel and killer video card in the same sentence!!!

Didn't think that was possible!!

Oxymoron?

Hence the expression "thick Cow".

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By StevoLincolnite on 7/11/2008 5:54:52 PM , Rating: 2

Intel did try with the Intel i740 AGP - It really was not a match with the Voodoo, TNT, Rage, Savage and MGA on the scene.

The thing I worry about is the drivers, if the IGP drivers are anything to go by right now... then I cannot see Larrabee's drivers being all that good, thus holding back the potential of compatibility and performance.

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By asdf23fvas324rf on 7/11/2008 6:43:40 PM , Rating: 2

wow, i cant believe you all are saying these things about future products based on a failed product that existed almost a decade ago. hey, lets play that game some more shall we, based on the old crappy netburst processors, nehalem will be a piece of crap. oh wait, thats right, nehalem got a pretty damn good preview from anandtech a few weeks ago not to mention conroe a few years ago. seriously, what intel did 10 years ago should not be so easily applied to this, chances are they learned from their mistakes and have taken measures to make sure they dont happen again. people, please, use some common sense.

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By MrTeal on 7/11/2008 10:00:41 PM , Rating: 3

The difference is that since Prescott Intel's had great success with the Core architecture. Even many of the netburst chips performed well, I had a Northwood 2.4C that outperformed anything available from AMD until the release of AMD64. People don't question Intel's expertise in building CPUs.

When it comes to discrete graphics, Intel's never been in the same ballpark as the dedicated manufactures. Hell, they've never been in a same ballpark as competence or success, for that matter.

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By Clauzii on 7/12/2008 1:45:18 AM , Rating: 2

But with the financials and manufactering facilities they posses, it looks more like it's by choice really.

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By MrPoletski on 7/12/2008 3:31:43 PM , Rating: 2

Intel will be re-entering the discrete GPU market again for DX 11.

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By slickr on 7/11/2008 3:49:48 PM , Rating: 2

wow, how can Nvidia infringement rambus patents, when rambus hasn't actually developed anything.
For all we care I might go patent 50 common/casual thing as they were mine.
Patents have to be detailed and specific and not something that everyone can make and think of!

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By mahax on 7/12/2008 11:44:59 AM , Rating: 2

Like AMD or NVIDIA were ever going anywhere. Intel needs these two, or it will be hacked up itself. Intel would be just too big a monopoly if either of it's competitors went down. It's not that crowded market you know...

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By Denigrate on 7/11/2008 2:54:04 PM , Rating: 2

All I want is more competition. If NVIDIA gets hurt to bad, we'll lose some of the competitiveness. AMD/ATI's come out with some Outstanding vidcards, and wonder of all wonders, they are priced right. I hope they force NVIDIA to do the same.

Parent

RE: All I can say is...

By Regs on 7/11/2008 3:08:45 PM , Rating: 2

If Nvidia really did steal...then they should suffer. Money that was suppose to goto Rambus in the first place does not hurt the economy.

Parent

Will rambus sue ati too?

By shabby on 7/11/2008 3:04:23 PM , Rating: 2

You'd figure rambus would sue both at the same time, is amd not infringing on the same patents?

RE: Will rambus sue ati too?

By hellokeith on 7/11/2008 3:08:59 PM , Rating: 3

Can't get blood out of a turnip?

Or perhaps they already have licensing agreements with ATI/AMD.

Parent

RE: Will rambus sue ati too?

By TheDoc9 on 7/11/2008 3:58:46 PM , Rating: 2

They're probably waiting or have already sued them before, as the article states Rambus has become a patent troll since they can no longer turn a profit.

Parent

RE: Will rambus sue ati too?

By PapaBear on 7/11/2008 5:31:36 PM , Rating: 2

AMD purchased the rights to RAMBUS back in 2006. So at this point it would be like AMD suing itself.

Parent

RE: Will rambus sue ati too?

By Cheesew1z69 on 7/12/2008 3:29:21 PM , Rating: 2

Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE:AMD) Inc. is paying $75 million over the next five years to use a range of Rambus technologies in a deal that specifically excludes AMD using the patents to manufacture Rambus-designed memory chips.

The license agreement focuses on the memory controller logic needed to connect to XDR, Rambus' eXtended Data Rate memories. The deal also includes Rambus patents covering DDR-2, DDR-3, FB-DIMM, and PCI Express technologies, as well as other current and future high-speed memory and logic controller interfaces.

Specific terms of the deal were not revealed, but the companies said the agreement can be renewed after five years.

"The license of our patent portfolio with AMD's demonstrated innovation in the microprocessor market is highly compelling," said Harold Hughes, chief executive officer at Rambus. "We are very pleased to start the new year with an agreement that reflects a new approach for pricing our controller licenses and to continue to provide the market with innovative high-speed chip interface technologies."

Parent

lol

By Murst on 7/11/2008 5:26:53 PM , Rating: 1

People here really need to research about Rambus instead of getting bad info from some anti-everything bloggers, or wherever they get their bad info from.

The company researches and designs technology. Sure, they don't produce it because they do not have the means to. But you know what? Neither does, for example, ATI (or at least before AMD bought them). Does that mean that ATI shouldn't own the products they designed because they couldn't produce them? Of course not.

Rambus is actually responsible for the major advancements in memory. They developed it first, and they offered the technology to memory manufacturers. If these manufacturers, like nVidia in this particular case, went off and took the technology w/o paying Rambus for it, then they need to pay up.

There's lots of companies that just exist for the purpose of buying up patents and then suing anyone who might infringe on them. Rambus actually researches and develops the technology, and they should be entitled to fees for doing so.

RE: lol

By TomZ on 7/11/2008 6:53:48 PM , Rating: 2

You can't avoid the fact that their handling of the JEDEC situation was less than honest, which is excaberated by the barrage of lawsuits that have followed. It is pretty obvious to any observer that the situation there was carefully orchestrated by Rambus.

After all, do you honestly believe that memory manufacturers, in following JEDEC standards, "willfully infringed" on Rambus' inventions? No, they were tricked into doing so.

Parent

RE: lol

By Murst on 7/11/2008 11:40:37 PM , Rating: 2

I completely agree with you that they acted inappropriately in that case. However, that doesn't mean that they are a worthless company that people make them out to be.

They had numerous (significant) contributions to how memory and memory controllers are architectured. Whenever a Rambus story comes out, people come out and bash the company, without really understanding that Rambus is probably the reason why their memory works like it does.

Rambus didn't just come out with these patents out of nowhere. They spent significant resources in researching them, and it is wrong for companies to steal their work without compensating them.

Parent

RE: lol

By TomZ on 7/12/2008 1:55:48 PM , Rating: 2

I didn't say the company was worthless, or that they were completely a patent troll. Of course they do a fair amount of legimate R&D work, and they probably have numerous "clean" patents.

The only part I personally take issue with is when they contribute to industry standardization workgroups without disclosing they have existing applied-for patents on the very same technologies.

Parent

RE: lol

By Murst on 7/13/2008 12:19:56 AM , Rating: 2

And I never said I was really posting about you..

Also, if you do some research, you'll find that Rambus (on multiple occasions) asked for a hearing during the standardization process, and was denied (they are the only company in the history of the JEDEC to be denied a hearing). Now, I'm not sure exactly what they wanted to present, but the fact that they weren't even allowed was rather questionable.

Right before Rambus left JEDEC, they were asked if any of the work that was discussed was conflicting with patents that Rambus held. Now, I'm not sure if you're familiar with US patent law prior to 2000, but if you've filed for a patent, and then discussed it (w/o an NDA), you could have your patent claim dismissed. At that point, Rambus left JEDEC.

There were a few rather high profile cases that aimed to determine if Rambus acted wrongly in any of the standardization hearings. Rambus was cleared of any wrongdoing, on multiple occasions.

The whole problem that Rambus is enountering is probably due to them not actually signing cross-license agreements with RAM manufacturers. All of the RAM manufacturers have a TON of patents for their products. However, since everyone has so many patents, these companies have cross-licencing agreements signed and no money needs to exchange hands. However, because Rambus does not produce anything, these cross-licencing agreements would be worthless to them. They want money, not access to other people's patents. Hence, the RAM manufacturers, instead of paying Rambus, tried to put Rambus out of business (this was probably the biggest anti-trust case in the world outside of Microsoft). Rambus won a judgement for something like 700 million $. Some execs from the memory manufacturers were sent to jail. It wasn't exactly pretty.

I find it rather ironic that people blame companies like Rambus for virtuall everything, while ignoring the fact that out of all of the memory "companies", Rambus is probably one of the most decent ones. At least they haven't been found guilty of commiting a crime, like the majority of other RAM manufacturers out there.

Parent

RE: lol

By emboss on 7/13/2008 8:04:56 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Also, if you do some research, you'll find that Rambus (on multiple occasions) asked for a hearing during the standardization process, and was denied (they are the only company in the history of the JEDEC to be denied a hearing).

This is because one of the requirements for being heard was IIRC that they had to disclose if they had any patents pending on the technology they were presenting. Rambus (unlike everyone else at JEDEC) didn't want to agree to this requirement, and so was refused the opportunity to present. This requirement was in place explicitly to prevent companies from sneaking patented or about-to-be-patented technologies into the standard.

quote:
Rambus was cleared of any wrongdoing, on multiple occasions.

They were also found guilty of wrongdoing, on multiple occasions :) As is usual when there is a large number of lawyers on all sides, it's basically a game of ping-ponging around technologically illiterate appeal courts until they run out of judges.

quote:
Hence, the RAM manufacturers, instead of paying Rambus, tried to put Rambus out of business (this was probably the biggest anti-trust case in the world outside of Microsoft). Rambus won a judgement for something like 700 million $. Some execs from the memory manufacturers were sent to jail. It wasn't exactly pretty.

This is actually a bit of Rambus-initiated misinformation. The price fixing lawsuits were for jacking UP the price of SDR/DDR RAM to large OEMs, not lowering it or price fixing on RDRAM. The only connection to Rambus was that it's thought that the DoJ got the evidence it needed while it was investigating Rambus. Rambus wasn't involved in the case at all, and not a cent of the fines went to Rambus. They like to make a lot of noise about the whole thing, though.

Parent

Rambus owns the future

By Sulphademus on 7/11/2008 3:14:31 PM , Rating: 5

quote:
as NVIDIA advances its product portfolio, it infringes more and more of our patents

Does this mean that Rambus already has patents on all future memory and memory interface technologies?
Sounds like it to me, from that quote.

I would also like to know the nature of these patents. If they follow the recent trend of patent suits, theyre probably "patents for the concept of moving electricity over small tubes of metal" or "an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force" or any of the other übergeneric patent cases recently. Basically, I want to know if Rambus is trying to pull an NTP.

RE: Rambus owns the future

By TheDoc9 on 7/11/2008 4:03:31 PM , Rating: 3

I think the worse part is that Judges fall for it. Hopefully as the more technical generation begins to take over, these suits will disappear. Many good companies have died because of this kind of greed and it only benefits them.

Parent