Originally Posted by Mahigan
We're not talking about Capitalism here. We're talking about an Open Standard licensing agreement (see contract law). You cannot pay more as a means to lock out competitors. You can pay more, as a means to obtain more HBM memory... true... but not to the point of excluding competitors from obtaining the same technology.
Paying more and buying everything they can produce is not the same as signing an exclusivity contract. You can't sign a contract that stipulates that, as a condition of the contract, they can't sell to someone else, but it isn't a breach of exclusivity to just buy all they can produce.
I can't tell you that you can't sell to someone else, but I can buy everything you make. Not saying that's what Nvidia is doing here, but if they contracted to buy 1000 wafers and it turns out Hynix (or whoever) can only make 1000 wafers, that's legal.
The Jedec patent policy is about not preventing people from using the standard to manufacture products that adhere to the standards (like Samsung deciding to make HBM, for example), it doesn't deal with manufacturer to customer contracts, at least not in any documents I've read.
And if making it a Jedec standard means you can't sign exclusive contracts, why has everyone been saying AMD has exclusive access to HBM?
Edit: And the Rambus FTC ruling was about them knowingly withholding a patent on a standard they helped develop, and then trying to enforce that patent later, along with changing their existing patents to cover the standard in an attempt to monopolize the market. Totally different issue.
Rambus’s course of conduct played on these expectations. Rambus sat silently when other members discussed and adopted technologies that became subject to Rambus’s evolving patent claims. Rambus voted and commented on inclusion of programmable CAS latency and burst length without revealing that it was seeking patent coverage of those technologies, despite language on the ballot that called for disclosure of relevant patents. Rambus twice evaded direct questions about its patent portfolio, coupling a nonresponsive answer with a reminder that it previously had disclosed a patent (which lacked any claims then relevant to JEDEC’s work). Rambus even provided JEDEC with a list of its patents that omitted the one patent Rambus believed covered JEDEC’s work.
At the same time that Rambus was avoiding disclosure of its patent activity, Rambus was engaged in a program of amending its applications to develop a patent portfolio that would cover JEDEC’s standards. Rambus made full use of information gleaned from its JEDEC participation to accomplish this objective. Rambus’s JEDEC representative was charged with overseeing development of patent claims that would provide better coverage of products compliant with JEDEC’s SDRAM standards, and Rambus’s CEO asked for progress reports on claims that would cover the JEDEC standards.
And to be clear, I'm not saying I believe this "article" at all, because I don't, I just don't see anything that would indicate being a Jedec standard prevents a manufacturer from selling to whoever it wants.Edited by Forceman - 10/1/15 at 8:07pm