There were plenty of foundries available to make RDRAMs. Why didn't they simply contract one out? If the prices were so high and there was still such huge demand they could have made a killing.
You need to get your facts straight!
The jury in the Hynix case said they infringed on RMBS patents. They did not say RMBS was a monopoly! And that case is on appeal and also on hold by the court so that this case and the current case can be both sent to the next higher court. Read the CASES as I have been telling you to do!
The FTC case was dismisses by a court that wrote the opinion that the FTC had failed to prove spoliation.
Based on the recent court ruling in Delaware and denial of the RMBS appeal, the FTC can go back and use this against RMBS.
You have no idea what is going on in the courtroom.
What part of this do you not understand?
"In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. HOLDING A DOMINANT POSITION OR A MONOPOLY OF A MARKET IS NOT ILLEGAL IN ITSELF, however certain categories of behavior can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions."
You post six paragraphs of fodder that has nothing to do with Rambus, apparently because it makes you feel smart. Glad you feel better, but try to stay on topic.-
The jury in Hynix said Rambus gained a monopoly and did so legally. READ IT! Have you seen the "monopoly police" out apprehending Rambus officers and shutting the Rambus HQ down because it gained a dominant or "monopoly" position in the market place. Now if Rambus abuses its power as a monopoly (hard to do right now since MU and Hynix don't pay a dime), then the FTC comes around. Until then, there is no governmental body out to bust Rambus as you have dreamed up.
Give it a rest man. It is the cartel that is being tried for violations of the Cartwright Act. Not Rambus. I'm going to have to put you on ignore. You are wasting my time and refuse to admit even the most obvious. Even the cartel lawyers aree not asserting your theory, so that should give you an indication of how far off base you are.
Rambus is a non-practicing entity ("NPE"). That means that it chooses not to manufacture it's owo inventions. There is nothing wrong with Rambus sticking with what it knows best - innovation. The patent laws fully protect innovation, whether that inventor manufactures or is an NPE. Many here miss that point.
Why would Rambus choose to manufacture? Profit margins are much higher for NPE's, so long as companies like MU and Hynix don't try to steal the technology and/or put Rambus out of businss via participating in antitrust.
That means that it hides what it thinks it can have issue as claims if it's duplicitous and deceptive enough in prosecutions before the PTO until its "leverage is better" by dint of extensive market penetration of open, fairly accessible standards.
It doesn't particularly "invent" anything but newly creative wording allegedly describing "features" of products that not only weren't made by it, but never in fact incorporated into any products of its licensees. Armed with this gibberish it's flailed around in courtroom after courtroom across the country and around the world, losing both its so-called-cases and the patents it abusively asserted in Europe and losing at least four cases in the United States.
Saying people have "stolen their technology" is preposterous at a minimum. They barely got a finding of infringement against claims they spent years targeting specifically at the JEDEC standards and that all went down the tubes because of their failed spoliation campaign and litigation misconduct. They're just not very good at what they do. Perhaps you should find a better group of patent scammers to hitch your wagon to.
You are absolutely correct. RMBS could have contracted out the production of RDRAM. They could have become the sole supplier and driven all other products out of the market. They would then have become a monopoly and would be in violation of the Cartwright Act and the Sherman Act
Ok, do me a favor. Go do some intense research (Wikipedia in your case) and find Monopoly. You will learn that monopolies can be legal or illegal. Rambus obtained a "legal" monopoly according to the jury diecision in Hynix v. Rambus.
The Cartwright Act deals with illegal monopolies, the kind that Hynix and Micron participated in.
Rambus was a very small company and did not have the capital to create it's own foundry, nor the desire to utilize the time and efforts of top management (it's inventors at the time) to enter into and manage an agreement with a contract foundry. Manufacturing, as we all know, has become a low-value activity to be avoided, as evidenced by the last decade of outsourcing to countries such as China and India.
Rambus is an IP company, solely. That is what Rambus chooses to do, and where it's value proposition is. Rambus employs a group of some of the world's best and brightest scientists and engineers who look out into the future 5 - 10 years to anticipate technological challenges that will present themselves. Rambus then begins developing solutions to those challenges. If Rambus anticipates future technological challenges correctly and develops solutions to those challenges, Rambus offers its patented technology to manufacturers. Rambus chooses not to fab or contract fab because it's business model is more effective when focusing solely on what it does best - innovate.
Those manufacturers are free to use Rambus technology in exchange for taking a license and paying agreed upon royalties. Alternatively, such companies can avoid paying Rambus royalties by using alternative technologies if available and if they are so inclined.
Rambus' business model is damaged when Rambus expends years of reasearch and development to create patented technologies which are used by manufacturers who do not take licenses and/or pay royalties. Additionally, Rambus' business model is damaged when companies conspire to fix prices or restrict the output of Rambus based technologies, making it difficult or impossible for Rambus products to compete in the open market place.
Further to your point, there is no requirement that an innovator actually maufacture it's patented techology in order to be protected under US patent laws. Those laws clearly protect non-manufacturing patentees. In other words, manufacturing one's inventions is not a prerequisite for patent protection, as some erroneously assume. This allows each company to do what they do best. Manufacturers engage in manufacturing. Inventors engage in innovation. This specialization can often drive more efficiency in the market place, spurring economic growth.
Had Rambus management known that the memory manufacturers would use Rambus's patented technology without taking licenses, and/or engage in felony antitrust price fixing intended to keep Rambus' products out of the market place, Rambus management may have chosen a different path. Now it is for the courts to punish the memory manufacturers and make Rambus whole.
But you knew that.
Why have they never made anything? Much more important question.
The closest was the "Chromatic Research" junk Farmwald was peddling that went belly up and stuck S3 and Creative Labs with the only products that ever incorporated Concurrent RDRAM. (LG Semicon, later merged with Hynix was the DRAM supplier for that product).