Y
Yousuf Khan
AMD Licenses Rambus Memory Patents
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1907477,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1907477,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
K
Kimmy
Y
Yousuf Khan
Kimmy said:
Your pick.
Looks like the Rambus crowd are super-excited by the AMD deal. Running
their stock price up because of it.
Yousuf Khan
K
Kimmy
Your pick.
I'd say neither, but I never followed rambus, I do remember folks saying
AMD would flop on the Hammer core and be a page in history.
Hmmmm the old pump and dump?
peace,
kimmy
Y
Yousuf Khan
Kimmy said:
We used to have a participant in this newsgroup, a long time ago named
John Corse. He used to start debates (mostly shouting matches) about the
value of Rambus memory vs. DDR. He'd be here to pump Rambus stock. His
favourite saying was, "DDR is dead, *dead*, DEAD", in a rising voice
style. At that time, Intel was heavily leaning towards Rambus, and AMD
towards DDR, therefore to John Corse, "AMD is dead, dead, dead" too.
Later of course, Intel relented on DDR and adopted it. Rambus got
embroiled in patent disputes, and its stock price plummetted. So people
were then joking, "Rambus is dead, dead, dead".
Rambus was always a speculator's wet dream. During the dotbomb days, you
could see it go up or down $10 or more in a day, just based on some
legal ruling about some completely unrelated company in another
industry, which may or may not have some passing resemblence to a Rambus
litigation. I kid you not, that actually happened!
Yousuf Khan
H
hackbox.info
not only memory patents, PCIe also.
G
George Macdonald
It's been emphasized by Rambus that AMD hasn't gotten any memory patents at
all - it's all to do with the interface/controller side of things... though
DDR-SDRAM is curiously missing. Either AMD already had an agreement which
covered that or Rambus decided to forgo that one.
So my prediction a while back could be right - they appear to have hijacked
PCI-e. The question I have is whether it's possible to design a PCI-e
interface without Rambus PHY patents... hmm, there appear to be other
players there: Xilinx, Synopsys, Altera.... Note that, according to the
membership roster, Rambus appears not to be a member of PCI-SIG.
C
Christy_z1
George said:
hijacked?
Did Rambus ever invent anything in your opinion? All your past posts
thoughout the years about Rambus are always negative against the
company.
D
David Kanter
We used to have a participant in this newsgroup, a long time ago named
LOL, as if the readers of comp.arch could move markets....
Unless perhaps we have a mutual fund manager reading, I rather doubt
the aggregate wealth of comp.arch readers can have any meaningful
influence on a stock that is widely traded.
as well...but the timelines are really unclear to outside observers.
The DRAM vendors have a decidedly poor legal reputation (look at all
the guilty pleas in the last few years and lawsuits). Rambus is
certainly as bad in some respects, except I don't think they really
started by deciding to try and kill all the DRAM vendors.
David
John Corse. He used to start debates (mostly shouting matches) about the
value of Rambus memory vs. DDR. He'd be here to pump Rambus stock. His
favourite saying was, "DDR is dead, *dead*, DEAD", in a rising voice
style. At that time, Intel was heavily leaning towards Rambus, and AMD
towards DDR, therefore to John Corse, "AMD is dead, dead, dead" too.
LOL, as if the readers of comp.arch could move markets....
Unless perhaps we have a mutual fund manager reading, I rather doubt
the aggregate wealth of comp.arch readers can have any meaningful
influence on a stock that is widely traded.
rambus as bad as they could. Obviously, Rambus was trying to **** them
as well...but the timelines are really unclear to outside observers.
The DRAM vendors have a decidedly poor legal reputation (look at all
the guilty pleas in the last few years and lawsuits). Rambus is
certainly as bad in some respects, except I don't think they really
started by deciding to try and kill all the DRAM vendors.
David
Y
Yousuf Khan
David said:
Hey, it looks like your news server is now carrying AISA.
Actually, I don't recall seeing John Corse on comp.arch. He was mostly
in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips and perhaps comp.sys.intel. Then again
stuff could've been crossposted.
It's like members of the mafia complaining to the police about getting
screwed over in a business deal and in the meantime all of their own
business dealings get exposed.
Yousuf Khan
C
chrisv
David said:
I don't believe that anyone has claimed that they wanted to "kill all
the DRAM vendors".
What Rambus (and Intel) wanted was to force everyone into using the
proprietary DRDRAM technology for all Intel-based PC's, thus
extracting their "cut" for each DRAM chip made.
K
Keith Williams
....and add a RAMBUS tax to the Microsoft and Intel tax on every
system sold.
G
George Macdonald
Ya know when somebody challenges me like you -- especially someone who
AFAIK is posting here for the first time -- I kinda like to know who they
are and what interests they represent. Pray tell why you feel the need to
post anonymously on sensitive subjects.
Yep and they're not even a member of PCI-SIG. Have you ever tried to get
some PCI, PCIX or PCI-E technical documentation? Don't tell me that
they've devised a superior solution by working in a different sandbox.
Rambus' biggest innovation was that they invented a new way to work the
patent system - this is the problem... and remains the problem: the patent
system is broken. Technically I'm sure Rambus has had a few good ideas -
many of the patents are obvious contrivances which should never have been
granted patents in the first place.
No more details until you reveal your ID.
AFAIK is posting here for the first time -- I kinda like to know who they
are and what interests they represent. Pray tell why you feel the need to
post anonymously on sensitive subjects.
Yep and they're not even a member of PCI-SIG. Have you ever tried to get
some PCI, PCIX or PCI-E technical documentation? Don't tell me that
they've devised a superior solution by working in a different sandbox.
Rambus' biggest innovation was that they invented a new way to work the
patent system - this is the problem... and remains the problem: the patent
system is broken. Technically I'm sure Rambus has had a few good ideas -
many of the patents are obvious contrivances which should never have been
granted patents in the first place.
No more details until you reveal your ID.
G
George Macdonald
'Cept this is not posted to c.a - it's csipch.c... and no I don't think the
usual readers here could move markets but it could be a little more
complicated.
What was happening, as far as we could figure, was that a couple of pump
'n' dumpers from the Yahoo RMBS stock group were planting msgs here and
trying to use it as a reference. Of course they themselves were looking
over their shoulders, hoping that all the insider trading would not sink
them before they pulled their dump.
If you mean resisting being held up for ransom, yes the memory mfrs, apart
from a coupla wimps -- and the biggest one has recently reneged on their
"friendship" with RMBS -- wanted nothing to do with Rambus or their "IP".
The timelines are quite clear for anybody who followed it, as well as the
web of deceit sewn by Rambus through a contorted mess of abandonments,
continuations & divisions of patent applications. They *were* censured for
document shredding and even the judge who upheld their appeal against
Infineon remarked on their (lack of) business ethics.
The DRAM *manufacturers*/vendors fell over for the "guilty pleas" because
it was cheaper; Christ at the time they were accused of price fixing, they
were all losing money hand over fist. What the hell did the legal system
expect them to do?... just declare banruptcy?... keep making and selling a
product which had negative returns? IIRC there's one guy in prison because
he had erased notes on competitors' pricing. Now tell me that sales reps,
in any industry, don't have notes on what competitors are charging.<shrug>
Rambus were scum; whether they've "reformed" we'll see - watch the lawyer
count. They *knew* they couldn't kill the DRAM vendors -- just look at the
investment required for a fab vs. RMBS capitalisation... not even in the
same ballpark. They just wanted to suck blood... at extortionate rates on
a per chip royalty basis.
There have been things that have happened and deals which have been made
which we'll probably never know about but here's a coupla little teasers
fer ya: how much did IBM pay to Rambus in licensing fees for the XDR IP
for Cell?... and why did nobody just buy RMBS up when it was at $4. or
so?
G
George Macdonald
Funny thing is: if all the DRAM mfrs/vendors had switched to DRDRAM they
might just as easily have been accused of (prosecuted for) price gouging
for adopting an unnecessarily high-priced technology for no effective gain
to consumers.
D
Del Cecchi
George Macdonald said:
I enjoyed the Rambus paper at ISSCC a few years ago. They were up on the
state of the art at that time, and I thought the auto switching between
4pam and nrz was pretty ingenious. I don't know if that was one of their
patents and I don't think any standard is using it. But their technology
and designers seem competent. Their managers and lawyers I don't know
about. I hope you don't mind my secret ids
del
D
David Kanter
Yep and they're not even a member of PCI-SIG. Have you ever tried to get
I doubt it's very hard...I mean
I've talked personally with a fair number of folks at Rambus, and it
might surprise you at how good they are at circuit stuff. There were
several IHVs who worked with Rambus, not for their IP, but for their
design expertise to do DDR2 stuff. Now you have to sit back and ask,
why this would be...the answer is that they have tremendous experience
with high speed circuit, and a lot of folks don't. The company makes
money and has very good products; they wouldn't have been selected for
the PS1-3 if they just made crap. Now, their products are specialized
and there was an attempt to shove them into a niche they didn't
fit...but that failed, partially due to rather illegal cartel action by
the DRAM vendors.
Similarly, I suspect a fair number of folks are interested in their
expertise (and the IP generated from said expertise) for I/O.
OK, why don't you start then by telling us which of their patents are
bogus? I have no doubt that a portion (say 5-15%) might be sketchy;
however, EVERYONE gets sketchy patents today.
David
I doubt it's very hard...I mean
I've talked personally with a fair number of folks at Rambus, and it
might surprise you at how good they are at circuit stuff. There were
several IHVs who worked with Rambus, not for their IP, but for their
design expertise to do DDR2 stuff. Now you have to sit back and ask,
why this would be...the answer is that they have tremendous experience
with high speed circuit, and a lot of folks don't. The company makes
money and has very good products; they wouldn't have been selected for
the PS1-3 if they just made crap. Now, their products are specialized
and there was an attempt to shove them into a niche they didn't
fit...but that failed, partially due to rather illegal cartel action by
the DRAM vendors.
Similarly, I suspect a fair number of folks are interested in their
expertise (and the IP generated from said expertise) for I/O.
OK, why don't you start then by telling us which of their patents are
bogus? I have no doubt that a portion (say 5-15%) might be sketchy;
however, EVERYONE gets sketchy patents today.
David
D
David Kanter
Funny thing is: if all the DRAM mfrs/vendors had switched to DRDRAM they
I don't think so, they could simply claim it was better technology...
DK
might just as easily have been accused of (prosecuted for) price gouging
for adopting an unnecessarily high-priced technology for no effective gain
to consumers.
I don't think so, they could simply claim it was better technology...
DK
G
George Macdonald
Define better. There was no evidence to back up that claim and in some
instances it was worse... and Intel knew it.
G
George Macdonald
I figured you'd know I was referring to their patents on DLLs and
count-down registers, etc... to do with memory interfaces. Just because
the court threw most of them out does not exonerate them. I'd also be
interested to know what you think of their declared intention to globally
chase down DDR signalling as their IP? Then there was RSL - I couldn't
figure out if they just wanted to patent the voltage or the oscillographs?
I hope you don't mind my secret ids
Yeah well you'd have gotten the same retort if you'd tried that on with me
before your "credentials" were "established".
E.g. I know thatDaytripper used to post under his own name and figure that he came across
some good reason to adopt an alias. OTOH the previous poster is apparently
just an anonymous sniper... without evidence to the contrary another of
those Usenet dilletantes.