The comment above claims that ?FTC takes the testimony of a bunch of convicted felons ? over the words of an innovative American company that *taught* the memory makers how to make SDR/DDR/DDR2?. Wow! The view of the world in black and white. Maybe it?s also true what some extremists claim, that all Arabs are terrorists and can?t be trusted because they are responsible for 9/11. Personally, I would give the readers of this forum much more credit for their intelligence. I?m sure they understand that the reality is usually much more complex than such simplistic analysis.
To counterbalance, I?ll swing over to the other end and present the opposing point of view: There?s nothing ?innovative? about participating in Jedec meetings and secretly filing for patents behind members? backs. I call that ?cunning? at best. Other than the technology in contention, what has Rambus done that is truly innovative? I see Rambus as a parasitic litigation firm rather than an innovative engineering firm. Rambus? unethical and monopolistic behavior stifles innovation, makes mockery of the patent system and further erodes the tradition of fair play in the industry.
I also wonder whether the commenter above would have the same view if Rambus were a foreign firm ? say Japanese or Korean ? suing American DRAM makers. Somehow, I doubt that. The FTC?s mandate is to ensure fair trade, not to protect interests of any particular American firm. I have no reason to believe that FTC commissioners are incompetent or biased against American firms. Let?s give the FTC a little credit they deserve.
Anybody that has been following this story knows that the FTC has been led down the garden path by the price-fixing memory maker's cartel. For some reason the FTC takes the testimony of a bunch of convicted felons (who have collectively paid hundreds in millions in penalties and have many execs in jail) over the word of an innovative American company that *taught* the memory makers how to make SDR/DDR/DDR2 (see the evidence from the last court case if you wan the full details). The upcoming anti trust case will be a hoot, and I predict we'll see even more damning evidence of malfeasance from our glorious band of convicted price fixing felons. -- EMC^2
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.