To: JD_Canuck who wrote (81411 ) 3/6/2002 6:42:48 PM From: Bilow Respond to Hi JD_Canuck; Re: "If i have my info right...those European patent applications predated Jedec, ... " This is true.... they were supported by the only patent experts to examine the claims to this point, as applying to not only DDR but also SDRAM. " This is true (as far as I know, I don't read Italian, and Rambus took down their translations of the experts reports), but it's judges that make the law, not experts.RMBS had SOMETHING that caused them to be invited to sit in on Jedec. " They had RDRAM, and they wanted to sell it. So they hobnobbed with industry. In addition, the individual employees of Rambus probably saw attending JEDEC meetings as good career building moves for themselves. That's also why those employees applied for the patents covering SDRAM, they wanted to get their names on patents as a career move. Rambus only tried to use the patents for covering SDRAM when it became clear that RDRAM was dead.Now, the industry(or some people in it) claim RMBS had nothing. " Actually, the industry always claimed this. And Rambus, by failing to mention their patents, agreed.... that all the claims were stolen from their Jedec participation. " Actually, industry says that the claims were attempted to be stolen from JEDEC, but that since Rambus' patents had to be interpreted in the light of their description of their memory, (which explicitly distinguished itself from prior memory types), it turned out that Rambus' were not successfully stolen.I know of no area where RMBS did not pull off what they agreed to contribute. " Maybe you're unaware that RDRAM originally was promised to work with 3 RIMMs per socket. In addition, it was supposed to be no more than a few percent more expensive than SDRAM.I know I would never turn my back on a company that entered into an agreement, accepted the cash up front, and then caused a serious delay in my business plans as they refused to provide what they had agreed to. It's not like Micron stuck a knife in Intel's back. Micron does not have a monopoly on DRAM production. Samsung kept Micron out of making RDRAM by always keeping the price below where it was profitable for Micron to begin production. And for that matter, Samsung never put the majority of their DRAM production into RDRAM. They peaked at something like 25% (see #reply-16503683 ). Why aren't you complaining that Samsung left Intel in the lurch? The reason you can't understand what happened here is that you refuse to accept the fact that RDRAM was horribly expensive to manufacture. Samsung was the lowest cost producer of the stuff, and their cost of production was much higher for RDRAM than SDRAM or DDR. Even the 4i version of the memory, no longer supported by Intel desktops, was only going to bring RDRAM to within 5% of DDR, but this was known in the industry to be wishful thinking: "Samsung’s prediction was not likely to come true, Elpida’s Inukai said. “There is still no (4i) chipset to support it, so it is not a realistic number,” Inukai said. " March 2, 2001, #reply-15439623
