Today the Patent Office Board of Appeals held two Rambus patents (6,470,406 and 7,287,109) invalid (subject to further appeals of course). These are two of the six patents at issue in the ITC proceeding against Nvidia (and many others).
Any opinon on how this may impact the stock in the very short term?
What we find just as interesting is the Reuters report about this yesterday.
Reuters reporting is clearly in the tank for the Cartel specifically,and is anti-Rambus generally. So much so, that it periodically publishes the Cartel's PR news release slants seemingly verbatim.
In this instance, when you read the sensationalized headline referring to invalidation of 2 Rambus patents, the article conveniently fails to note anywhere that the other 4 at stake in the ITC proceeding by implication were validated, in not being invalidated. It only takes one to carry the day.
Reuters reporting is not just shoddy, it is biased and disingenuous.
Of course, RMBS management does nothing to counter this concerted PR campaign.
By "we" do you mean you and your 40 Yahoo one star aliases, or do you mean the voices in your head saying "we are legion" or some crap? Maybe Ramboids have formed a collective hive mind, part of their whole "take over the world" plan, scary.
Why don't you use logic and reason and do some research, and stay the heck away from IV forum, it is obviously poisoning your mind. You might just come to your senses and realize how biased and delusional the so called court reporting is in that forum, but it might be too late for you to get your money back if you are heavily invested, so you should at least listen to this sage advice, hedge your bets.
I need to go grab my boots this BS is getting thick. Are you still drunk or slightly hungover? Are you saying this is good news for RMBS?
You can spin this any way you want but if you take into account that these patents were invalidated because of apparent FRAUD and combine this with SPOLIATION you start to piece together the WHOLE picture.
Rambust is run by lying thieves, who tried and FAILED to MONOPOLIZE the entire DRAM market, and are now trying to make a jury believe that everybody is conspiring against them, just as you believe.
This is not going to work, as you have seen, McBride stopped siding with Rambust last week after meeting with his peers and studying the evidence of spoliation over the long weekend. This is the same evidence that COMPELLED Judge Robinson to THROW out their case.
Reuters and the rest of the FREAKING WORLD are not wrong, YOU ARE!!!
Not even a Rambus patent. It belongs to IBM... you are talking about 6470405...
Both have been subject to "re-exam". The re-exam process at the USPTO routinely "invalidates" patents that are being reexamined. It is a deceiving term as it only means that the patents is in the re-exam process and nothing more.
Unless there is an update you can reference, below is the latest information on these patents, showing that some claims are validated, some have been rejected. It only takes one claim on one patent for infringement to apply by the way.
“Protocol for Communication with Dynamic Memory”
Claims 11-13, 15 & 18 are not anticipated or made obvious by Farmwald ‘755.
Patentability of Claims 1-37 confirmed – on appeal to the PTO Board.
“Method of Controlling a Memory Device having a Memory Core”
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 20-21 & 24 are not anticipated or made obvious by Farmwald ‘755.
Claims 1-25 rejected by Examiner as anticipated by Farmwald ‘037 – on appeal to Board where NVIDIA argues the claims are invalid on the basis of other prior art, as well.
written so that users of (G)DDR(x) would "have to" infringe by powering up their computers.
That includes you, stoneage.
The trick got old a long time ago. It will pay off negatively.
Maybe there should have been some mention of "sampling" in the written description. Or a time at which it might begin to occur.
I'm sure that CAFC will be just thrilled to see that there's another opportunity to help Rambus defend its sixteen year old "IP" that they only started making into a "sampling process" eleven years ago and waited until Sidney Harris retired to protect from those rampaging JEDECs.
The best she could have hoped for was a covenant made with Intel not to sue for the working of any process necessarily infringing any hokey patent claims that Rambus thought were a clever way to make end users who chose to purchase machines incorporating JEDEC standard (G)DDR(x) rather than follow the Direct RDRAM ramp over the cliff.
"For purposes of this Section 3, an "Unlicensed IC" shall mean an Integrated
Circuit the manufacture, use, import, or sale of which by a third party is
unlicensed by Rambus. With respect to each Unlicensed IC acquired by Intel or
its Subsidiaries from a third party and incorporated by Intel into an Intel
Licensed Product, due to the licenses granted herein:
(A) Rambus shall retain all of its rights against such third
parties, and no license, covenant not to sue, or other right or benefit shall be
implied on behalf of said third party with respect to the Unlicensed IC.
(B) The Unlicensed IC is expressly excluded from the scope
of Intel's and its Subsidiaries' license (express, implied, or otherwise), but
Rambus hereby agrees that it cannot assert any claim against Intel, its
Subsidiaries, or their distributors or customers, mediate or immediate, with
respect to any such entity's use, importation, offer for sale, or sale of such
Unlicensed IC if purchased from Intel as part of an Intel Licensed Product.
(C) If however, Intel or its Subsidiaries incorporate such
Unlicensed IC into a product that is an Intel Licensed Product, Rambus hereby
agrees it cannot assert any claim against Intel, its Subsidiaries, or their
distributors or customers, mediate or immediate, with respect to any such
entity's use, importation, offer for sale, or sale of such Unlicensed IC."
Users of Samsung products don't get such preferential treatment:
"Except as expressly provided for under this Agreement, none of the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed to, and shall not be construed to, constitute, whether by implication, estoppel, acquiescence or otherwise, (i) an authorization by either party, their respective Subsidiaries and/or any other Third Party to Sell, offer for Sale and/or import any product (1) in or for combination with any other element (including, but not limited to any function or feature), product or instrumentality; or (2) unconditionally for use in or for combination with any other element (including, but not limited to any function or feature), product or instrumentality; or (ii) a waiver by either party or their respective Subsidiaries of any liability for infringement based on either party’s, their respective Subsidiaries and/or any other Third Party’s use, Sale, offer for Sale and/or import of any product in combination with any other element (including, but not limited to any function or feature), product or instrumentality. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit or alter any rights under applicable law relating to patent exhaustion."
Whether or not everyone's exhausted by Rambus' patenting schemes is the only unanswered question here.
"15. The method of claim 11 further comprising providing address information to the memory device."
Unfortunately, this is out of sequence with respect to the operation of a JEDEC standards compliant SDRAM. The /RAS /CAS interface "improved on" by the qualification of the command and address bus by a clocking edge requires concurrent transmission of address and write command codes. Beyond being indefinite, the claim is misleading, since the disclosed "protocol" clearly requires concurrent transmission of "address information" with data to be written "to the DRAM".
"18. The method of claim 11 wherein the plurality of control codes includes a third code which specifies that a row of sense amplifiers be activated."
This is clearly not infringed by operators of JEDEC standards compliant SDRAM of any generation. You can try to puzzle out why.
In the meantime, no specific apparatus has been implicated by the claims. Only individuals causing the operations to be carried out, by any indefinite means, are "infringing".
Fortunately, Horowitz had the good grace not to turn his mommy into an infringing scofflaw by giving her a "Camino"; which I hear she "just loved".
Unless, of course he also slipped in an Mpact2 based Creative Video Blaster. Then she'd owe billions for her willful infringements.....
"11. A method of controlling a semiconductor memory device, wherein the memory device includes an array of memory cells, the method comprises:
providing a plurality of control codes to the memory device wherein the plurality of control codes include a first code which specifies that a write operation be initiated in the memory device and a second code which specifies that a precharge operation be initiated automatically after initiation of the write operation;
delaying for an amount of time after providing the plurality of control codes; and
issuing an external strobe signal to the memory device after delaying for the amount of time, to signal the memory device to sample data, wherein the data is to be written to the array during the write operation."
A bit incoherent, but largely reading on the prior art "/CAS" method of writing to DRAM which was always executed "synchronously with respect to an external clock" no matter how obfuscated anyone tries to make it.
"12. The method of claim 11 further comprising issuing a first portion of the data and a second portion of the data to the memory device, wherein the first portion of the data is sampled during an odd phase of an external clock signal, and the second portion of the data is sampled during an even phase of the external clock signal."
This one's unfortunate since it actually reads on the unworkable 1990 RamBus patent which used a gated sense amplifier that "sampled" data throughout an interval during which a controlling signal was in a logic high state.
"13. The method of claim 12 wherein the first and second portions of the data are both issued during a first clock cycle of the external clock signal."
This reads on Redwine et. al. of 1978. The only reason it can survive is that the dependence on the useless "even phase / odd phase" sampling method. Redwine sampled data on the rising and falling edges of a control signal into two shift registers. The same method was adopted by Rambus when their 1990 "invention" was discovered by them to be useless in their Toshiba joint development effort.
Kushiyama et. al. documented the abandonment of "sense amp samplers" and "multiplexers" and the adoption of a master-slave two stage equivalent edge sampler with dual shift registers operating on complementary clocking edges as practiced by Redwine et. al. in the 1993 Rambus design documentation:
"A 500-megabyte/s data-rate 4.5 M DRAM"
We're more than halfway done and we still don't have or need a "controller".
Only a method of operation "in" a semiconductor memory device.
Any and all of the steps of the alleged process were being allowed to be carried out by the "inventors" (for their profit) for at least two years in the United States before they even started claiming the "method" that even managed to survive (briefly).
Pretty much the end of that part of the Nvidia (and everyone on earth) lawsuit scam no matter what.
How are these morons going to be able to pay the rent?
When are you going to be getting your "big windfall"?
The Ramboids are in a "fake antitrust complaint" induced stupor.
They'll get back to this interesting news after their current hopes of "monetizing the past" are dashed against the rock that is the unforgiving written law.
At least they have some more "exciting" lawsuits filled with the endless droning of BSing shysters to look forward to for the future.