Scumbria... >>So what you are saying is that Rambus invented SDRAM... <<
Nowhere did I say that Rambus invented SDRAM. Those are your words. It is the Rambus technology that is being used by all these dram manufacturers that is in question. Rambus invented the technology that Hitachi is using and have been using in their SDRAMs without paying Rambus any royalties for it's use. Prior to the lawsuit Hitachi didn't want to talk to Rambus about this situation. They wouldn't give Rambus the time of day. That's the reason for Rambus filing the lawsuit.
>>Recently something changed and they decided that they did want to collect royalties on their SDRAM invention, after all..<<
What happened after many years was that Rambus was granted their IP patents in late 1999. Now they were armed to pursue what rightfully belongs to them. Their original patents were filed, I believe, in 1990.
>>When the stock price reaches $500, that will prove that DRDRAM is a better technology.<<
No! We already know that DRDRAM is a better technology. The $500 price is just the frosting on the cake and makes it worth our time and efforts.
>>Did I summarize your interpretation correctly?<<
Absolutely not! You did a terrible job!
Here's a gift... brush up a little...
Rambus - Hitachi Patent Case Escalates
Is Antitrust an Iceberg in the IP waters?
The patent dispute between Rambus and Hitachi was kicked up a notch
last week when Rambus filed a section 337 action with the International
Trade Commission asking that Hitachi be prevented from importing into
the US SDRAM and SH processor products that Rambus alleges
infringe upon its patents. In addition, the ITC filing asks that Sega
products incorporating the SH processor also be barred.
For its part, Hitachi filed its reply to the patent case. Although Hitachi
did not admit to using technology covered by the Rambus patents, the
bulk of its reply centered on the validity of those patents and on the
antitrust impact of allowing Rambus to assert them. Hitachi referred to
prior art and contended that claims on the Rambus patents cover
techniques that had been discussed at JEDEC standard setting
meetings that Rambus attended. JEDEC rules require that attendees
make known any patent positions that could interfere with the open
adoption of standards under discussion. Access to any such patents is
required to be offered ?under fair and reasonable terms?free of any
unfair discrimination?.
The Hitachi response also alleged that some Rambus license terms
violate antitrust rules limiting ?tie-in? sales. This aspect of Hitachi?s reply
makes us wonder if a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission might
be Hitachi?s next step.
The case so far - Rambus filed suit against Hitachi on 18 January
alleging violation of four Rambus patents in Hitachi?s SDRAMs and
some of its SH processor chips. The suit was augmented on 29
February with the addition of two more recent patents. The ITC action
cites two additional newly issued patents. The number of patents
involved could grow beyond these eight if more patents are issued to
Rambus.
The basis of the dispute is that Hitachi has used Rambus patented IP in
its SDRAMs and in some of its SH processors (those that have a
SDRAM interface) in violation of the terms of its Rambus license. But
Hitachi?s SDRAMs are fundamentally no different from every other
SDRAM on the market, why was Hitachi singled out for the legal
action? Rambus says that it was because Hitachi had been
unresponsive to their requests to discuss the matter. But Hitachi is also
notable by its total absence from the RDRAM market and its vocal
support of the competing DDR.
Another consideration may have been that Hitachi plans to combine its
memory business with that of NEC on 1 April. NEC is also a Rambus
licensee and has been producing some RDRAM. If there is a threat of
NEC?s SDRAM coming under this legal action as a result of the merger,
NEC might put pressure on Hitachi to settle with Rambus, or even delay
the merger.
Hitachi has many customers for it?s SH processors, why was Sega
singled out? One reason may be that Sega?s most visible product, the
Dreamcast game console, competes with Sony?s Play Station 2, which
uses the Rambus RDRAM.
There are two major issues highlighted by this case. First the inherent
conflict between patent law and antitrust law. And second, the role of
technical standard setting groups in an industry where at least some of
the innovation is coming from firms who?s only business is selling their
IP.
Patent and antitrust laws have always been somewhat at odds. One of
the drivers of antitrust legislation in the US in the 1890s was that
manufacturing firms were establishing monopoly positions in their
industries by refusing to license patents. But this situation is different.
IP firms by definition license their patents, generally as broadly as
possible. Here, it is the terms of those licenses that are in question.
Standards organizations are generally successful when manufacturing
companies are willing to give up potential profits on their technology and
IP in the hope of enlarging the overall product market where they will
then compete on price, quality, service, etc. The IP model stands this
concept on its head. With IP as its only product, an IP company cannot
afford to use its patents as loss leaders, it has no other source of
revenue.
Patent cases are usually lengthy. ITC 337 cases are usually quicker,
but this one seems to be more complex than average. But in the end,
these cases will set precedents that will have lasting impact on the IP
industry as a whole.
Steve Cullen, Principal Analyst, Memory Services |
