Rambus has way more engineers than lawyers, even if you count outside counsel they used n this case. They have hundreds of self-developed patents, recognition for which you can see on the plaques lining the walls of their offices.
It cost them tens of millions of dollars to develop these technologies. ige
A jury and a three month trial - no wonder the wheels of US justice grind exceedingly slowly. I am getting sick fed up of the likes of Apple seeking injunction because [gosh!] another makers product has a rectangular screen or other basoc or obvious feature. Of course when the boot was on the other foot the Beatles had to take them back to court again and again for selling music using their trade mark.
RAMBUS lost a $4B lawsuit and their stock dropped 60%. That's all the proof you need that the firm was simply a patent troll...
RDRAM was ridiculously expensive and never reduced its price, even when the rest of the market did. It's exactly that kind of arrogance that spelled the company's downfall.
To claim that RDRAM failed in the marketplace due to high prices ignores its fundamental technical flaws. RDRAM memory is designed for high bandwidth and many outstanding memory requests (with each chip forming a separate memory bank), but at the cost of a significant increase in latency due to the bus snaking through tie RIMMs. It performed well for scientific and graphics workloads that can support multiple outstanding memory requests, but poorly for integer workloads that typically can only support a few outstanding memory requests. The bus design led to higher power dissipation, and more challenging circuit design and fabrication, and larger die size. Recall how Intel had to give up on a three-RIMM channel.
RDRAM should have stayed focused on graphics applications that can best leverage its features.