Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Let anti-IP circle jerk begin!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.extremetech.com/article [...] 449,00.asp Rambus Inc. filed suit against four memory makers on Tuesday, alleging
that the companies infringed several patents involving DDR-2 memory
technology.
Rambus filed suit against Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Infineon
Technologies AG, Nanya Technology Corp., and Inotera Memories Inc., as
well as their overseas subsidiaries. In all, Rambus charged that the
defendants had infringed 14 of its patents; the company said that the
sub-group of Infineon, Nanya and Inotera had also infringed four more
patents, for a total of 18. ADVERTISEMENT
All of the patents involve DDR-2 memory or derivatives, including
Graphics DDR-2 (GDDR-2) memory or its replacement, GDDR-3 memory. DDR-2
memory is used in conjunction with the latest chipsets from Intel Corp,
Via Technologies, and Nvidia Corp. inside PCs, notebooks, and servers.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
On 25 Jan 2005 15:29:43 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com wrote:
>Let anti-IP circle jerk begin!
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1754449,00.asp
>Rambus Inc. filed suit against four memory makers on Tuesday, alleging
>that the companies infringed several patents involving DDR-2 memory
>technology.
>
>Rambus filed suit against Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Infineon
>Technologies AG, Nanya Technology Corp., and Inotera Memories Inc., as
>well as their overseas subsidiaries. In all, Rambus charged that the
>defendants had infringed 14 of its patents; the company said that the
>sub-group of Infineon, Nanya and Inotera had also infringed four more
>patents, for a total of 18. ADVERTISEMENT
>
>All of the patents involve DDR-2 memory or derivatives, including
>Graphics DDR-2 (GDDR-2) memory or its replacement, GDDR-3 memory. DDR-2
>memory is used in conjunction with the latest chipsets from Intel Corp,
>Via Technologies, and Nvidia Corp. inside PCs, notebooks, and servers.
>
>...
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
In case anyone actually cares, here is the link to Rambus' full
document:
There is a complete list of what patents are being infringed upon. I
opened a couple of them up... pretty much standard-fare for Rambus...
Take an idea that's been in widespread use for quite a while, file it
as a new patent that is a continuation of an extension of a
continuation of a division of a extension of a now abandoned patent
and somehow try to tie it back to the original Rambus patent filed in
1990. Here's an example:
Patent #: 6,314,051 - Memory device having write latency
This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/566,551
filed May 8, 2000 (still pending), which is a continuation of
application Ser. No. 09/213,243 filed Dec. 17, 1998 (now U.S. Pat. No.
6,101,152), which is a continuation of application Ser. No.
09/196,199, filed on Nov. 20, 1998 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,038,195);
which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/798,520, filed on
Feb. 10, 1997 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,841,580); which is a division of
application Ser. No. 08/448,657, filed May 24, 1995 (now U.S. Pat. No.
5,638,334); which is a division of application Ser. No. 08/222,646,
filed on Mar. 31, 1994 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,513,327); which is a
continuation of application Ser. No. 07/954,945, filed on Sep. 30,
1992 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,319,755); which is a continuation of
application Ser. No. 07/510,898, filed on Apr. 18, 1990 (now
abandoned).
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:34:05 -0500, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
>On 25 Jan 2005 15:29:43 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Let anti-IP circle jerk begin!
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1754449,00.asp
>>Rambus Inc. filed suit against four memory makers on Tuesday, alleging
>>that the companies infringed several patents involving DDR-2 memory
>>technology.
>>
>>Rambus filed suit against Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Infineon
>>Technologies AG, Nanya Technology Corp., and Inotera Memories Inc., as
>>well as their overseas subsidiaries. In all, Rambus charged that the
>>defendants had infringed 14 of its patents; the company said that the
>>sub-group of Infineon, Nanya and Inotera had also infringed four more
>>patents, for a total of 18. ADVERTISEMENT
>>
>>All of the patents involve DDR-2 memory or derivatives, including
>>Graphics DDR-2 (GDDR-2) memory or its replacement, GDDR-3 memory. DDR-2
>>memory is used in conjunction with the latest chipsets from Intel Corp,
>>Via Technologies, and Nvidia Corp. inside PCs, notebooks, and servers.
>>
>>...
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>In case anyone actually cares, here is the link to Rambus' full
>document:
>
>http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/2005-01-25ComplaintHynixInfineonNanyaInotera.pdf
>
>
>There is a complete list of what patents are being infringed upon. I
>opened a couple of them up... pretty much standard-fare for Rambus...
>Take an idea that's been in widespread use for quite a while, file it
>as a new patent that is a continuation of an extension of a
>continuation of a division of a extension of a now abandoned patent
>and somehow try to tie it back to the original Rambus patent filed in
>1990. Here's an example:
>
>Patent #: 6,314,051 - Memory device having write latency >
>
>This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/566,551
>filed May 8, 2000 (still pending), which is a continuation of
>application Ser. No. 09/213,243 filed Dec. 17, 1998 (now U.S. Pat. No.
>6,101,152), which is a continuation of application Ser. No.
>09/196,199, filed on Nov. 20, 1998 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,038,195);
>which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/798,520, filed on
>Feb. 10, 1997 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,841,580); which is a division of
>application Ser. No. 08/448,657, filed May 24, 1995 (now U.S. Pat. No.
>5,638,334); which is a division of application Ser. No. 08/222,646,
>filed on Mar. 31, 1994 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,513,327); which is a
>continuation of application Ser. No. 07/954,945, filed on Sep. 30,
>1992 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,319,755); which is a continuation of
>application Ser. No. 07/510,898, filed on Apr. 18, 1990 (now
>abandoned).
Gotta keep 'em fresh you know... otherwise they err, wither on the bough,
fall to earth and umm, expire... and 1990 was a long while ago. The web of
deceit is certainly helpful too. Bottom line is the USPTO methods and
practices needs to be overhauled. Now what I want to see is the
confrontation between Mosaid and Rambus come to the fore - a head to head
between two IP corps. could clear some of the fog here; add in the RIM/NTP
contre-temps and we could have a cross-border war.:-)
I'd been wondering how long before they'd get around to DDR2
"infringements" but one odd thing here: Micron is curiously absent from
those DDR2 claims - I wonder if they have some arrangement through Intel
for access to the patents. Intel dumped some cash into Micron a while back
(18months or so) to encourage DDR2 production.
One thing which is intriguing here is that, once again, the claims in the
above doc are such that every manufacturer in the digital electronics
business must be violating several of the "patents" - DDR, synchronous
timing, timed delays, variable length data are so ubiquitous in every
aspect of inter device communication throughout the entire industry... and
yet RMBS is allowed to hack away at just the memory mfrs... for the moment!
It's about time the big players stepped up to the plate and sued Rambus for
whatever.... fraud?... racketeering?
I'm still puzzled as to why nobody thought to buy out RMBS when their stock
was sitting at $4-$5. in 2002.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Why Micron is missing from lawsuit? To quote from the article:
"A temporary order issued in November in the ongoing litigation between
Micron Technology Inc. and Rambus has prevented Rambus from adding
Micron's name to the defendant list, Danforth added."
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
On 26 Jan 2005 12:15:37 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com wrote:
>Why Micron is missing from lawsuit? To quote from the article:
>
>"A temporary order issued in November in the ongoing litigation between
>Micron Technology Inc. and Rambus has prevented Rambus from adding
>Micron's name to the defendant list, Danforth added."
Now you can slither off back to your pump 'n' dump chatrooms.
