Funny thing is that Rambus didn't have any "relevant patents" to disclose when SDRAM/DDR standards were discussed. They have invented fast memory in 1990 and they've been teaching memory manufacturers how to make it, under NDAs. They then have been invited to join JEDEC because of their expertise, seemingly. They have left a few years later after realizing that their inventions were being hijacked and incorporated into the standards, by the very memory producers they've been teaching. Everybody knew what Rambus invented but some didn't want to pay royalties. So they pretended not to remember where the inventions came from and accused Rambus of deceiving a standard-setting organization. And called in the government. Isn't that a wonderful way to strip somebody of patent rights? It's cheap too. That may have been the real reason behind JEDEC invitation.
Also funny is the fact that JEDEC continues to openly incorporate additional Rambus inventions into its new standards, DDR2, DDR3, GDDRx, etc. A decade after Rambus left. Nobody was able to come up with anything better, so they just take more of what works. US FTC started its case against Rambus at the urging of big memory companies, however it could only limit royalties on the old SDRAM/DDR standards. The mainstream has long moved to DDR2. Of course, memory companies wanted free unlimited use of all Rambus inventions. They didn't get it. The little they did get is under appeal. What will the EU Commissioners be left pointing to if FTC decision is overturned by a real court?
Indeed, there was a patent ambush. Only it was the other way around. Certain memory manufacturers ambushed Rambus in attempt to strangle it, so they could use its IP for free. Although unfortunately the "savings" didn't reach the consumer, as these companies were convicted by DOJ of memory price fixing. So for a long time consumers paid inflated prices for stolen, stripped down designs, without even knowing it. The memory in your computer could have been 10 times faster, just look at Rambus' XDR memory design. If there were no Rambus, it would quite possibly be 10 times slower. Is 1-4% royalty for inventions facilitating 100x faster memory - "unreasonable"?
Innovation is being strangled in front of your eyes, people. Wake up.
When two people negotiate a deal, both of them are trying to get the most out of it they can.
If I gain 5$ on the deal and you gain 1000$ on the deal, then we both win. It would not be "unreasonable" for me to accept that deal, but is it fair? If I consider it fair that we each get what we deserve, then it suddenly becomes very unreasonable for me to accept that deal.
You haven't given a good reason why it should be considered fair that Rambus receives royalties in this situation.
The tinyurl link leads to a 403 error. Please correct this broken link.