seekingalpha.com
Rambus Will Outlive FUD
Tom Shohfi's article, "Rambus's Litigation-Based Business Can't Last" is riddled with so many mistakes as to scarcely be worth a serious refutation, but I will give it a try. Shohfi managed to spin the usual party line with the usual cliches and other worn out accusations which never pass the test of factual analysis. Let me give you a few examples.
Shohfi: "They [Rambus (RMBS)] would probably sue everyone who has ever put random access memory in a chassis if juicy settlements would come out of it...a company like this is called a patent troll."
Fact: Mr. Brobow, attorney for Micron, attempted to slur Rambus in court with the epithet of "patent troll". In ruling that the OEMs couldn't refer to Rambus as a troll in front of a jury, Judge Ronald Whyte, foremost patent judge in the U.S., spanked Bobrow with the following statement, "Rambus is not a manufacturer of the DRAMS, but it's certainly not in the position of the infamous trolls. There's no way, in my view, that Rambus falls into that category."
It is my understanding that the pejorative "troll" alludes to an entity that collects patents from others and attempts to profit from them. Rambus patents are all produced in house by engineers of impeccable credentials. They have been proven to be invaluable in unblocking the bottleneck at the interface between the CPU and memory. Every modern memory interface has several Rambus inventions inculcated within it improving its speed, quality, and low power consumption. Ironically, the term troll fits well to Mr Shohfi who collects misinformation from other FUDsters (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) and spits it out as his own.
Shohfi: "Rambus failed because the minimal performance benefits that it provided were not worth the cost to consumers. This was the core reason for the mass adoption of cheaper chipsets supporting SDRAM and the marginalization of Rambus technology."
Fact: The Memory Manufacturers (Hynix, Micron, Samsung, and others) conspired to fix pricing of DRAM in such a way as to attempt to "kill Rambus." These same parties pled guilty to this very illegal price-fixing of DRAM (including RDRAM) in the DOJ conspiracy case which resulted in fines of 700 million dollars and jail time for some of the more egregious crooks at these companies.
If Rambus technology were so "marginalized" and "minimal" why did the MMs take the technology and incorporate it into its "standardized" chipsets (see pages 313-316 ALJ Judge Stephen McGuire's, FTC ID)? The facts are that the technology was disruptive and essential, and the MMs were unable to design around it (see pages 323-326 same as above).
Shohfi: "[Rambus]....is still fighting the FTC to keep royalties levels high."
Fact: In a 330 page Initial Decision by Administrative Law Judge Stephen McGuire on February 23rd, 2004, the FTC exonerated Rambus of any and all charges of wrongdoing. When the politically motivated 5 Commissioners tried to overturn the fact-based ID, they were unanimously shot down by the Appeals Court. The recent refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the FTC's appeal of that ruling makes any reference to FTC "fighting" ridiculous.
Shohfi: "It would be a monumental task to get Rambus back to profitability and build its client base after dragging so many technology companies through their legal meat grinder."
Fact: The FTC, at the behest of Micron and Hynix took Rambus through their politically driven meatgrinder, and lost. Hynix filed against Rambus (2000 N.dist. of California). Micron filed against Rambus (2005 Delaware). Samsung filed against Rambus (E. dist. of Virginia). Rambus's client base and collaborators has included Intel, IBM, Sony, AMD, Toshiba, Fujitsu, and many others who recognize the value of Rambus innovations.
In truth, there is nothing to prevent criminal expropriation of invaluable Intellectual Property except the law. Repeatedly, over the past ten years, documents have been uncovered in the courts proving beyond any doubt that the cartel of conspirators (Hynix, Micron,Samsung, Infinion, and others) decided that Rambus technology was fundamental and unavoidable. Rambus saw the fruits of their labors being used without it being licensed. They had no alternative but to go to the courts to seek redress. Their having done so emphatically does NOT make them a "Litigation-Based Business" in spite of Mr. Shohfi's disparagements.
Rambus has a bright future.They have a Memorandum of Understanding with Intel which could include products utilizing technology from the Rambus Terabyte Initiative which delivers an astounding 1000 GB/s to a system. Also, unveiled lately by Rambus, is their MMI (Mobile Memory Initiative) which through a single Rambus XDR DRAM device will provide a phenomenal 17 GB/s to state of the art mobile devices, at extremely low power (2mW/Gbps). Mr Shohfi's piece stated that Rambus's behavior "stifles innovation". Once again, facts prove he got it wrong.
Disclosure: Author holds long positions in RMBS and MU |
