After a recent U.S. Navy civilian submarine
      joyride ended in tragedy, the news media treated us to many video clips of
      submarines surfacing. Keep that image in mind, as it will help you relate
      to the twists and turns of the ongoing Rambus court case. Indeed, the
      latest accusations leveled against Rambus by SDRAM makers Micron, Hyundai
      and Infineon in court are that Rambus Inc. used so-called "submarine
      tactics" to inappropriately acquire patents to SDRAM technology that
      it had not invented.'Submarine tactics' refers to the practice of keeping patents secret
      until competitors come out with a similar product. At that point the
      submarine patent holder can "surface" quickly and demand
      royalties and fees for the product in question. Patents derived by
      submarine tactics may or may not be enforceable depending upon the
      situation. In the case of Rambus Inc.'s SDRAM patents, a strong argument
      can be made that the patents will be rendered invalid by the current court
      case. Here are some of the highlights.
      Rambus filed patent applications for Rambus DRAM and Rambus controllers
      in 1990. They argue that these patents also covered certain aspects of
      SDRAM technology. Then in 1992, a standards body known as JEDEC was formed
      by a consortium of memory makers to hammer out the new technical standards
      for SDRAM. Rambus Inc. joined JEDEC at that time and participated in the
      meetings until 1996. During their participation they failed to disclose
      any of their existing patent applications as required by JEDEC rules.
      JEDEC adopted several SDRAM standards between 1992 and 1996. It was in
      1996 that it became clear to Rambus that JEDEC was preparing to vote on
      the final standard for SDRAM technology. Rambus pulled out of JEDEC at
      that point, and then in 1997 filed amended patent applications to cover
      SDRAM technology. These were finally awarded in 1999 and 2000, long after
      SDRAM had been on the market.
      Internal Rambus documents released recently by the court clearly
      indicate that Rambus had a business plan that involved submarine patents.
      But unlike regular submarine patents, Rambus went one step further. Rambus
      never planed on participating in JEDEC to help work out SDRAM standards.
      Their participation was more like a mole in spy circles. The basic idea
      was to acquire enough information from the JEDEC meetings to amend their
      existing patent applications to cover as much of the technology in SDRAM
      as possible. As soon as it became apparent to Rambus that they would have
      to either disclose their existing patents, or make them invalid due to the
      upcoming vote by JEDEC members, Rambus quit the standards committee.
      It was not until the year 2000 that Rambus began to flex its patent
      muscle in the marketplace. SDRAM had become the standard PC memory type at
      a time when Rambus was trying to get the computer industry to adopt Rambus
      DRAM as the new standard. Rambus worked out a deal with Intel that forced
      the chip giant to use Rambus DRAM exclusively for their upcoming Pentium 4
      processor. But due the very high price of Rambus DRAM, Rambus Inc. decided
      that it's submarine patents could help if they could be used to force
      SDRAM makers to pay royalties to Rambus Inc.. This would reduce the price
      difference between the two memory products, and help Rambus with market
      penetration. But as you might imagine, some of the SDRAM makers decided to
      fight back. And that has led us to this court case.
      It is probably safe to say that Rambus Inc.'s stock may suffer as the
      court case continues on. Few of the internal documents released so far put
      Rambus Inc. in a positive light. Indeed many of them seem to bolster the
      argument put forward by SDRAM makers that Rambus Inc. is, and has been,
      engaging in anticompetitive practices. As such, Rambus has become the
      subject of an FTC probe to determine whether nondisclosure of its SDRAM
      patent applications to JEDEC constituted a "restraint of trade".
      Between the court case and the FTC probe, it looks like Rambus is in hot
      water. If more damaging information comes out, I would hope that the court
      in San Jose CA would slap an injunction on Rambus Inc. preventing them
      from collecting any further royalties from SDRAM makers until the court
      case has been settled.