The JEDEC Solid State Technology Association, composed of more than 300 high-profile companies, is perhaps best known for being the steering group behind DRAM technologies. On an invitation basis, influential semiconductor companies are invited to participate in the development or ratification of de facto standards. At the conclusion of these motions, such as in the case of SDRAM or DDR SDRAM, the technology is pushed as agreed upon by every member of JEDEC to such an extent that it becomes the technology to use in its given application.
Enter RAMBUS, to whom an invitation was extended in 1992. RAMBUS’ entry could not have come at a more fortuitous time for the firm, as it helped Hynix, Qimonda (Infineon), Micron and Samsung bring SDRAM into the world. It was also during their four year tenure that RAMBUS played a large role in the development of DDR1. However, in 1995/1996 it became increasingly evident that RAMBUS was not prepared to comply with a “Reasonable and non-discriminatory” licensing policy that any firm who contributes technology to the standard must agree to. Therefore after four years of membership, RAMBUS stepped down from the organization to blaze its own (Legal) trail.
The development, ratification and standardization process at JEDEC is a long and involved process that requires the contribution of existing patents, and the development of new technologies to complete the picture. In addition, the meetings are not conducted in secret, as minutes and whitepapers are published on JEDEC’s website. As a result of these insecurities, several key events played a part in RAMBUS’ vast legal entanglement:
2000
RAMBUS begins filing lawsuits against the largest memory manufacturers at the time, with the claim that RAMBUS is the legal owner of SDRAM and DDR-SDRAM technologies. Seven memory firms, including Samsung, quickly settle with RAMBUS and agreed to pay royalties. RAMBUS next moves to Infineon, which is joined by Micron and Hynix in the fight. Countersuing with claims of fraud, RAMBUS v. Infineon goes to court under trial by jury. Amidst the proceedings, it is revealed that RAMBUS had been patenting the new technologies brainstormed in 1992-1996 JEDEC meetings used to “Complete the picture” of the emerging SDRAM and DDR-SDRAM standards. Found guilty of fraud by the jury, with the notion that the patents were filed in extremely bad faith, the claims against Infineon are dismissed.
2002
The United States FTC files charges against RAMBUS, alleging anti-trust violations. The FTC filing essentially declared that RAMBUs had employed underhanded “Patent Ambush.” A patent ambush is a ploy by which a company deceives a standards body by neglecting to reveal it owns the patents to several key elements being employed in the developing standard. In the case of RAMBUS, these key elements were actually patented by RAMBUS while they were being brainstormed by the JEDEC body.
2003
FTC v. RAMBUS goes to trial, and is eventually dismissed in 2004 by the Chief Judge of Administrative Law for the FTC, Stephen J. McGuire. In McGuire’s ruling, it is put forth that memory manufacturers had no viable alternatives to RAMBUS technologies. Similarly, McGuire asserts that the firms involved in the JEDEC fiasco were aware of RAMBUS’ patent portfolio when talks over SDRAM and DDR-SDRAM were under way.
Also in this year, the 2001 ruling of fraud for the 2000 RAMBUS v Infineon trial is overturned by the Federal Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court refuses to hear the new trial, and thusly the case is remanded back to Virginia.
2004
Infineon pleads guilty to price-fixing in an attempt to force RAMBUS out of the market. Hynix, Samsung, Elpida and Infineon are fined a collective sum of USD$730m for collusion.
2005
Unsatisfied with the results of their previous legal endeavors, RAMBUS files suit against Hynix, Nanya, Inotera, Micron and Infineon claiming that DDR 2, GDDR 2 and GDDR 3 chips employ elements of RAMBUS’ patent portfolio. In March of this year, RAMBUS had its new and year 2000 claims against Infineon dismissed. At the settlement table, Infineon agrees to pay USD$5.9m quarterly licensing fees. In addition, legal wrangling between Infineon and RAMBUS ceases. The cases with Micron and Hynix remain in court.
2006
On the heels of McGuire’s 2002 ruling which validated RAMBUS’ legal maneuvering, the FTC files an appeal. On 2 August, 2006, the appeal is accepted and McGuire’s ruling is overturned. The new FTC ruling states that section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act was violated in RAMBUS’ attempt to illegaly monopolize the memory industry, and that RAMBUS deliberately attempted to deceive JEDEC which violates the FTC Act.
5 February, 2007
The US FTC limits the maximum royalties that RAMBUS may collect on its portfolio. As of 2010, RAMBUS can no longer collect on DDR-SDRAM or SDRAM. The ruling also limits the amount that can be obtained for memory controllers or components involved in the operation of DDR/SDRAM chips. RAMBUS has appealed this ruling and awaits a court date.
Which brings us to August of this year which has seen two significant developments in the long and sordid history:
Firstly, the FTC has ruled that RAMBUS has in fact deceived a standards-setting committee in a fraudulent fashion. The new FTC order stops RAMBUS from collecting royalties on US and foreign patents on goods being imported to or from the US. This maneuver has spurred EU regulators.
As of today (23 August, 2007), the European Union has mirrored the FTC’s motion which grants relief to EU member states. The EU’s Statement of Objections charges the memory firm with patent ambush, deception and fraud; the SO gives RAMBUS nine weeks to respond before significant fines are levied on the firm.
Articles RSS