Back to Article

  • ananduser - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    ...if only Apple took a page from Rambus' experience. Reply
  • tayb - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    I would not. Why would I want to license my patented technology to a competitor? I would rather be the sole offering in the market and send them back to the drawing board.

    Of course, regulatory boards would probably step in and stop me... but I would not do it willingly. And if you were the owner of a business I doubt you would either.
  • Exodite - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    This is why we can't have nice things. Reply
  • tayb - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    We can't have nice things because I fronted the research costs and would like some semblance of exclusivity on a market I essentially created? You are more than welcome to bring a competing offering but abusing my research costs, launching a competing offering at a lower price (because you don't have research costs to recoup), and then hoping I'll settle for an insignificant licensing fee at a later date is not at all fair in my opinion. Reply
  • FaaR - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    What exactly is it you claim Rambus researched? It's been well established pretty much all they've sued people over is stuff presented in open standards talks that they've snuck out the back door, patented and backdated to a previous patent, then surprised everyone else with. Reply
  • tayb - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    This is more of an hypothetical than a real world take on the Apple or Rambus situation. I don't really know enough about either of those suits and the patents involved to have a meaningful dialogue. I'm speaking in generalities here. Reply
  • Belard - Monday, February 13, 2012 - link

    Then why make the previous response?

    RAMBUS is a patent troll. They done minimal research and then screwed everyone.

    Hatchet belongs in rambus dead body.
  • dcollins - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    You're right in concept. The only problem is that patents are granted for far too long. If you invented some awesome technology, you should be the first to bring your product to market, but you do not deserve to own that market forever. Technology patents should expire in at most 5 years, probably 3 years. Reply
  • tayb - Friday, February 10, 2012 - link

    I think it should be 5 years for the patent and then it enters a FRAND-esque state for 4 more years and then it is considered "prior art" and anyone can use it. Reply
  • Penti - Monday, February 13, 2012 - link

    Technology doesn't really work like that, either you supply your research to a standards-body and get some cash as well as some awsome products out or your just out of the game with proprietary tech nobody uses and avoids because they can only turn to one player, one supplier which overchage and has no capacity. Regulation doesn't really need to come into play at all.

    Plenty of tech is used royalty and claims free for years then you get players like Microsoft turning up some 8 years after it's on the market and saying they want money. It won't work in the long run. Ultimately it will turn people away from stuff that aren't clearly licensed by a standards body and it will take forever to change anything.
  • B3an - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    Hi there, i work for Apple.

    You have used the letter "i"' far too much in your comment. Your IP has been tracked and we will be taking you to court. If you are not aware, we invented the letter "i" and own a patent on it.

    @Anand, this site has rounded corners on a few of the buttons. We own a patent on rounded corners. We also invented them. If you remember everything before the 1980's was actually square until we brought forth this original innovation. Please correct these rounded corners within 15 days.
  • retrospooty - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    LOL... Dont for get that Apple also patented the shape of a rectangle, as well as the colors black and white. Reply
  • FITCamaro - Friday, February 10, 2012 - link

    Apple shouldn't even be able to get people to pay for licensing since most of their patents are invalid to anyone with a clue. Many of their patents have instances of prior art that they just did first on a mobile phone. Doesn't make it their invention though. Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    First the favorable settlement with Intel over chipset licensing/GPU IP and now a presumably favorable settlement with Rambus. That takes care of the two major legal matters Nvidia has dealt with over the last few years and it sounds as if they got more favorable terms in both cases. Reply
  • minijedimaster - Thursday, February 09, 2012 - link

    Why settle at all? RAMBUS deserves nothing but a quick and painful death in the market. I would have appealed all loses in court since their patents were nulled by the Patent office and bankrupted them to oblivion. That way real innovation could continue in the market place without company's worrying about some idiot company coming along and "creating" a patent and suing them. Reply
  • mevans336 - Friday, February 10, 2012 - link

    ... and this is why you don't run a Fortune 500 company.

    It's not about principles, it's about the dollar.
  • chizow - Friday, February 10, 2012 - link

    Yeah while I strongly dislike Rambus and their actions over the last decade or so, I think it was smart for Nvidia to just settle at presumably much more favorable terms so they can get back to business as usual.

    Looming litigation and any similar uncertainty is just bad for business, so the sooner they put it behind them the better. Plus it gets expensive. Nvidia is big enough to not get pushed around but unlike Intel with endlessly deep pockets or Rambus that lives in the courtroom, Nvidia would probably prefer to spend its resources on its business rather than on legal bills.
  • Wolfpup - Friday, February 10, 2012 - link

    Yeah, I totally agree. RAMBUS needs to die, their only real "product" being fraud.

    I'm assuming this is just Nvidia saying "this is cheaper than continuing to fight" even though they're presumably in the right. Bad thing is RAMBUS gets even more money to continue "operations", such as they are.
  • RamarC - Sunday, February 12, 2012 - link

    i know it's old but still appropirate (i can't apropros):

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now