|
|
|
|
||
Re: 3D XpointThat CONTROL was STOLEN away by a dizzying combination of anti-trust collusion (legally admitted to by Samsung/Hynix executives), crooked or inept judges (Payne, Robinson), political corruption (Sen. Orrin Hatch's influence on the PBAI and the FTC for the benefit of his former son in law...Micron's CEO and the largest employer in his State), suspiciously UNTIMELY retirements/removal of a key CAFC Judge which was favorably inclined to Rambus's arguments (Rader), legal landscape changes (eBay's stopping of injuctions) and the hugely STUPID self-inflicted wound by Rambus CEO Hughes (in settling with Samsung which negated its key smoking gun evidence). RDRAM technology was bound to eventually fail. That’s been discussed at length on this board. (Note it’s been reported that the Intel design team was against it but was forced to develop it by Intel Marketing). Also note: Rambus Waterloo: How Intel Sunk the Antitrust Micron/Hynix Lawsuit Trial Embarrassment Intel's testimony during the trial tapped the nail into Rambus' coffin. Intel testimony related to the court that Rambus' DRAM technology was not ready for market and its failure was mostly due to the Rambus' inability to understand basic market requirements in which reliability is of the utmost importance. Dell Computer suffered some 300% higher field returns over DDR SDRAM with their foray into the Rambus DRAM technology. Intel lost over a billion dollars in the i820 recall and when all was said and done, the company finally decided that they could not rely on Rambus for the future of their memory requirement and turned to DDR2 instead….. Intel key to the AT Trial August 29, 2011 Rambus Blamed by Intel Trial Witnesses for Doomed Chip Rambus Inc. (RMBS) can blame itself and not the semiconductor makers targeted in its $3.95 billion suit for the failure of a memory chip to become the industry standard, according to Intel Corp. (INTC) managers who worked with the company . Paul Fahey, an Intel engineer called to testify in defense of Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Micron Technology Inc. at an antitrust trial in state court in San Francisco, told jurors that Rambus’s technology was flawed and its engineers less competent than their peers. Rambus’s insistence on a so-called guillotine contract also led Intel to conclude its alliance with the company was “doomed,” William Swope, a former Intel strategic planning manager, testified. More: 11/18/2011 Rambus, intriguingly, called no live witnesses from Intel. That left an opening for Hynix and Micron, and they took it. “We believed their testimony was helpful,” Nissly told me. A couple former Intel execs testified, but the most dramatic testimony, according to Price, came from an Intel engineer named Paul Fahey, who was subpoenaed by the defense. According to Price’s closing argument, Fahey said that Intel was working all-out to adapt the Rambus chips for its processors, to the extent that Intel employees canceled vacations, worked weekends, and risked their marriages. Rambus, meanwhile, seemed to take a much more cavalier approach — which was explained, according to Price’s account of Fahey’s testimony, only when Rambus filed a patent suit against Hitachi, claiming that Rambus patents were infringed in the industry-standard memory chips its rivals were producing. Intel then realized, according to Price, that Rambus had a backup plan if its propriety chips didn’t supplant the chips other companies were selling: it would sue those other companies for IP violations. (That’s the so-called ‘Plan B’ that allegedly resulted in Rambus shredding documents in company-sanctioned ‘shred days.’) “Fahey exploded when he testified about that,” said Price, one of Quinn Emanuel’s most experienced trial lawyers. “It was the most emotional testimony I’ve ever seen at trial.” |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
765850 | Re: 3D Xpoint | valuationguy | 13 | 3/28/2017 5:03:05 PM |