Continuing fluff of the Living Ramboids

Mike Danford's letter on "the injustices that have been done to Rambus by Jedec, Micron, Hynix, and Infineon" is unfortunately much the same claim that the Ramboids have been making all along. Having read the transcripts of the trial, and all four judges' remarks, I am at a loss to work out which side had fewer scruples. The verdict seemed to hinge on who had failed to observe the correct legal rituals when playing commercial dirty tricks. So let's ignore that aspect.

But, as an experienced computer professional, I can say that they did NOT "invent innovative and superior technology" to the extent claimed (either in the patents or by the Ramboids). What Rambus did was to adapt some 1960s disk technologies to 1990s DRAM, and to produce a complete design out of a set of mechanisms that other people didn't think would fit together. So it is the design AS A WHOLE that is the "innovative and superior technology" and not the details.

Obviously, that should be patentable, and I don't think that anyone would claim that RDRAM isn't a patented technology. But, whether any of the details are genuinely innovative enough to allow them to lay any claim to SDRAM and DDRAM is a lot less clear. As an engineer, I would say "no", but apparently USA lawyers have different standards.

Elderly cynic
Name, address supplied