By Bill Slawski, on November 20th, 2009In August, the Official Google Blog announced an upgrade to Google’s infrastructure code-named Caffeine, aimed at making the search engine faster, and Google opened the system up for testing to people who might want to provide feedback. An interview with one of the developers behind the upgrade described it as an upgrade to the Google File System.
While looking around the US Patent Office assignment database this morning, I noticed a number of new patents and patent applications assigned to Google on November 18, 2009, originally granted to startup MetaRAM.
If a search engine wanted to seriously upgrade its capabilities, it might do more than upgrade its software. It might also upgrade the hardware that it uses. The technology detailed in the MetaRAM patents could potentially transform Google’s computing capacity dramatically.
I have no idea if Google’s Caffeine upgrade also includes a memory upgrade at this point, but I suspect that the MetaRAM patent assignments may not be related.
A post at the Wall Street Journal’s blog from July told us about the demise of MetaRAM, a startup with some very high profile founders, board members, and exectives, including a CEO who was chief technology officer of Advanced Micro Devices Inc for ten years, and a Board of Directors’ member who was a former chief scientist of Sun Microsystems Inc. – Turning Out The Lights: Semiconductor Company MetaRAM
An interview with original and former CEO of MetaRAM from May of 2008, provides a lot of insight into the direction that the company was taking – Pioneering Change in the Memory Market: MetaRam Visionary Fred Weber.
Did Google acquire MetaRAM, or just the patent filings from the company? I’m not sure at this point. The WSJ blog post tells us that the company was shutting down without providing a date for its closing, but the LinkedIn profiles that I could find for people from MetaRAM still list their positions with the company as their present place of employment.
I haven’t been able to locate much in the way of recent news about MetaRam, nor much that associates them with Google.
Will Google keep this technology inhouse, and use it to reduce the costs of servers and workstations by a significant amount while increasing the amount of memory available to those systems, or will they license or sell the technology directly, or both? So little is known at this point, and there hasn’t been an announcement from Google or anyone from MetaRAM yet that I could find. I haven’t seen any rumors of the transaction behind the assignment of the patent filings anywhere on the Web either.
I’ve listed the granted patents and the patent applications separately below. There are 49 of them in total, though a number of them have been filed more than once for one reason or another.
Granted Patents:
Integrated memory core and memory interface circuit (7,515,453)
Abstract
A memory device comprises a first and second integrated circuit dies. The first integrated circuit die comprises a memory core as well as a first interface circuit. The first interface circuit permits full access to the memory cells (e.g., reading, writing, activating, pre-charging and refreshing operations to the memory cells). The second integrated circuit die comprises a second interface that interfaces the memory core, via the first interface circuit, an external bus, such as a synchronous interface to an external bus. A technique combines memory core integrated circuit dies with interface integrated circuit dies to configure a memory device. A speed test on the memory core integrated circuit dies is conducted, and the interface integrated circuit die is electrically coupled to the memory core integrated circuit die based on the speed of the memory core integrated circuit die.
Abstract
A memory circuit power management system and method are provided. In use, an interface circuit is in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. The interface circuit is operable to interface the memory circuits and the system for autonomously performing a power management operation in association with at least a portion of the memory circuits.
Abstract
A memory circuit power management system and method are provided. An interface circuit is in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. In use, the interface circuit is operable to perform a power management operation in association with only a portion of the memory circuits.
Interface circuit system and method for performing power saving operations during a command-related latency (7,581,127)
Abstract
A memory circuit power management system and method are provided. In use, an interface circuit is in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. The interface circuit is operable to interface the memory circuits and the system for performing a power management operation in association with at least a portion of the memory circuits. Such power management operation is performed during a latency associated with one or more commands directed to at least a portion of the memory circuits.
Methods and apparatus of stacking DRAMs (7,379,316)
Methods and apparatus of stacking DRAMs (7,599,205)
Abstract
Large capacity memory systems are constructed using stacked memory integrated circuits or chips. The stacked memory chips are constructed in such a way that eliminates problems such as signal integrity while still meeting current and future memory standards.
Power saving system and method for use with a plurality of memory circuits (7,580,312)
Abstract
A power saving system and method are provided. In use, at least one of a plurality of memory circuits is identified that is not currently being accessed. In response to the identification of the at least one memory circuit, a power saving operation is initiated in association with the at least one memory circuit.
System and method for simulating an aspect of a memory circuit (7,609,567)
Abstract
A system and method are provided for simulating an aspect of a memory circuit. Included is an interface circuit that is in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. Such interface circuit is operable to interface the memory circuits and the system for simulating at least one memory circuit with at least one aspect that is different from at least one aspect of at least one of the plurality of memory circuits. In accordance with various embodiments, such aspect may include a signal, a capacity, a timing, and/or a logical interface.
System and method for power management in memory systems (7,590,796)
Abstract
A memory circuit power management system and method are provided. In use, an interface circuit is in communication with a plurality of physical memory circuits and a system. The interface circuit is operable to interface the physical memory circuits and the system for simulating at least one virtual memory circuit with a first power behavior that is different from a second power behavior of the physical memory circuits.
Pending Patent Applications
Some of the patent applications below share names with granted patents above, and may contain the same or very similar content. There are also some pending patent applications with the same name and abstracts, and those have been grouped together below.
Apparatus and Method for Power Management of Memory Circuits by a System or Component Thereof (20080082763)
Abstract
An apparatus and method are provided for communicating with a plurality of physical memory circuits. In use, at least one virtual memory circuit is simulated where at least one aspect (e.g. power-related aspect, etc.) of such virtual memory circuit(s) is different from at least one aspect of at least one of the physical memory circuits. Further, in various embodiments, such simulation may be carried out by a system (or component thereof), an interface circuit, etc.
Combined Signal Delay and Power Saving System and Method for Use with a Plurality of Memory Circuits (20080123459)
Abstract
A system and method are provided. In use, at least one of a plurality of memory circuits is identified. In association with the at least one memory circuit, a power saving operation is performed and the communication of a signal thereto is delayed
Emulation of Abstracted DIMMs using Abstracted DRAMs (20090216939)
Abstract
One embodiment of the present invention sets forth an abstracted memory subsystem comprising abstracted memories, which each may be configured to present memory-related characteristics onto a memory system interface.
The characteristics can be presented on the memory system interface via logic signals or protocol exchanges, and the characteristics may include any one or more of, an address space, a protocol, a memory type, a power management rule, a number of pipeline stages, a number of banks, a mapping to physical banks, a number of ranks, a timing characteristic, an address decoding option, a bus turnaround time parameter, an additional signal assertion, a sub-rank, a number of planes, or other memory-related characteristics. Some embodiments include an intelligent register device and/or, an intelligent buffer device.
One advantage of the disclosed subsystem is that memory performance may be optimized regardless of the specific protocols used by the underlying memory hardware devices.
Abstract
A memory circuit power management system and method are provided. An interface circuit is in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. In use, the interface circuit is operable to perform a power management operation in association with only a portion of the memory circuits
Abstract
A memory circuit power management system and method are provided. In use, an interface circuit is in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. The interface circuit is operable to interface the memory circuits and the system for autonomously performing a power management operation in association with at least a portion of the memory circuits.
Memory Circuit Simulation System and Method with Power Saving Capabilities (20080027697)
Abstract
A system and method are provided including a component in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. The component is operable to interface the memory circuits an the system for simulating at least one memory circuit with at least one aspect that is different from at least one aspect of at least one of the plurality of memory circuits. The component is further operable to perform a power saving operation.
Memory Circuit Simulation System and Method with Refresh Capabilities (20080027703)
Abstract
A system and method are provided including an interface circuit in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. The interface circuit is operable to interface the plurality of memory circuits and the system for simulating at least one memory circuit with at least one aspect that is different from at least one aspect of at least one of the plurality of memory circuits. The interface circuit is further operable to control refreshing of the plurality of memory circuits.
Memory Circuit System and Method (20090024789)
Memory Circuit System and Method (20090024790)
Abstract
A memory circuit system and method are provided in the context of various embodiments. In one embodiment, an interface circuit remains in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. The interface circuit is operable to interface the memory circuits and the system for performing various functionality (e.g. power management, simulation/emulation, etc.).
Memory Device with Emulated Characteristics (20080056014)
Memory Device with Emulated Characteristics (20080126687)
Memory Device with Emulated Characteristics (20080103753)
Memory Device with Emulated Characteristics (20080126692)
Memory Device with Emulated Characteristics (20080126689)
Memory Device with Emulated Characteristics (20080109206)
Memory Device with Emulated Characteristics (20080126688)
Memory Device with Emulated Characteristics (20080104314)
Abstract
A memory subsystem is provided including an interface circuit adapted for communication with a system and a majority of address or control signals of a first number of memory circuits. The interface circuit includes emulation logic for emulating at least one memory circuit of a second number.
Memory module with memory stack and interface with enhanced capabilities (20070195613)
Memory module with memory stack (20080126690)
Abstract
A memory module, which includes at least one memory stack, comprises a plurality of DRAM integrated circuits and an interface circuit. The interface circuit interfaces the memory stack to a host system so as to operate the memory stack as a single DRAM integrated circuit.
In other embodiments, a memory module includes at least one memory stack and a buffer integrated circuit. The buffer integrated circuit, coupled to a host system, interfaces the memory stack to the host system so to operate the memory stack as at least two DRAM integrated circuits. In yet other embodiments, an interface circuit maps virtual addresses from the host system to physical addresses of the DRAM integrated circuits in a linear manner.
In a further embodiment, the interface circuit maps one or more banks of virtual addresses from the host system to a single one of the DRAM integrated circuits. In yet other embodiments, the buffer circuit interfaces the memory stack to the host system for transforming one or more physical parameters between the DRAM integrated circuits and the host system.
In still other embodiments, the buffer circuit interfaces the memory stack to the host system for configuring one or more of the DRAM integrated circuits in the memory stack. Neither the patentee nor the USPTO intends for details set forth in the abstract to constitute limitations to claims not explicitly reciting those details.
Memory Refresh System and Method (20080025122)
Abstract
A system and method are provided. In response to the receipt of a refresh control signal, a plurality of refresh control signals is sent to the memory circuits at different times.
Memory Systems and Memory Modules (20080010435)
Abstract
One embodiment of the present invention sets forth a memory module that includes at least one memory chip, and an intelligent chip coupled to the at least one memory chip and a memory controller, where the intelligent chip is configured to implement at least a part of a RAS feature. The disclosed architecture allows one or more RAS features to be implemented locally to the memory module using one or more intelligent register chips, one or more intelligent buffer chips, or some combination thereof. Such an approach not only increases the effectiveness of certain RAS features that were available in prior art systems, but also enables the implementation of certain RAS features that were not available in prior art systems.
Method and Apparatus for Refresh Management of Memory Modules (20080028136)
Method and apparatus for refresh management of memory modules (20080109598)
Method and Apparatus For Refresh Management of Memory Modules (20080028137)
Method and Apparatus For Refresh Management of Memory Modules (20080109597)
Abstract
One embodiment sets forth an interface circuit configured to manage refresh command sequences that includes a system interface adapted to receive a refresh command from a memory controller, clock frequency detection circuitry configured to determine the timing for issuing staggered refresh commands to two or more memory devices coupled to the interface circuit based on the refresh command received from the memory controller, and at least two refresh command sequence outputs configured to generate the staggered refresh commands for the two or more memory devices
Methods and apparatus of stacking DRAMs (20070058471)
Abstract
Large capacity memory systems are constructed using stacked memory integrated circuits or chips. The stacked memory chips are constructed in such a way that eliminates problems such as signal integrity while still meeting current and future memory standards.
Method and circuit for configuring memory core integrated circuit dies with memory interface integrated circuit dies (20070014168)
Abstract
A memory device comprises a first and second integrated circuit dies. The first integrated circuit die comprises a memory core as well as a first interface circuit. The first interface circuit permits full access to the memory cells (e.g., reading, writing, activating, pre-charging and refreshing operations to the memory cells). The second integrated circuit die comprises a second interface that interfaces the memory core, via the first interface circuit, an external bus, such as a synchronous interface to an external bus. A technique combines memory core integrated circuit dies with interface integrated circuit dies to configure a memory device. A speed test on the memory core integrated circuit dies is conducted, and the interface integrated circuit die is electrically coupled to the memory core integrated circuit die based on the speed of the memory core integrated circuit die.
Multiple-Component Memory Interface System and Method (20080028135)
Abstract
A system and method are provided, wherein a first component and a second component are operable to interface a plurality of memory circuits and a system.
System and Method for Adjusting the Timing of Signals Associated with a Memory System (20080115006)
Abstract
A system and method are provided for adjusting the timing of signals associated with a memory system. A memory controller is provided. Additionally, at least one memory module is provided. Further, at least one interface circuit is provided, the interface circuit capable of adjusting timing of signals associated with one or more of the memory controller and the at least one memory module.
System and Method for Delaying a Signal Communicated from a System to at Least One of a Plurality of Memory Circuits (20080025108)
Abstract
A system and method are provided for delaying a signal communicated from a system to a plurality of memory circuits. Included is a component in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. Such component is operable to receive a signal from the system and communicate the signal to at least one of the memory circuits after a delay. In other embodiments, the component is operable to receive a signal from at least one of the memory circuits and communicate the signal to the system after a delay.
System and Method for Increasing Capacity, Performance, and Flexibility of Flash Storage (20080086588)
Abstract
In one embodiment, an interface circuit is configured to couple to one or more flash memory devices and is further configured to couple to a host system. The interface circuit is configured to present at least one virtual flash memory device to the host system, wherein the interface circuit is configured to implement the virtual flash memory device using the one or more flash memory devices to which the interface circuit is coupled.
System and Method for Reducing Command Scheduling Constraints of Memory Circuits (20080109595)
System and Method for Reducing Command Scheduling Constraints of Memory Circuits (20070204075)
System and Method for Reducing Command Scheduling Constraints of Memory Circuits (20080120443)
Abstract
A memory circuit system and method are provided. An interface circuit is capable of communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. In use, the interface circuit is operable to interface the memory circuits and the system for reducing command scheduling constraints of the memory circuits.
System and Method for Simulating a Different Number of Memory Circuits (20080027702)
Abstract
A system and method are provided for simulating a different number of memory circuits. Included is an interface circuit in communication with a first number of memory circuits and a system. Such interface circuit is operable to interface the memory circuits and the system for simulating at least one memory circuit of a second number. Further, the interface circuit interfaces a majority of address or control signals of the memory circuits.
System and Method for Simulating an Aspect of a Memory Circuit (20090285031)
Abstract
A system and method are provided for simulating an aspect of a memory circuit. Included is an interface circuit that is in communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. Such interface circuit is operable to interface the memory circuits and the system for simulating at least one memory circuit with at least one aspect that is different from at least one aspect of at least one of the plurality of memory circuits. In accordance with various embodiments, such aspect may include a signal, a capacity, a timing, and/or a logical interface.
System and Method for Simulating an Aspect of a Memory Circuit (20080062773)
System and Method for Simulating an Aspect of a Memory Circuit (20080133825)
Abstract
A memory subsystem is provided including an interface circuit adapted for coupling with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. The interface circuit is operable to interface the memory circuits and the system for emulating at least one memory circuit with at least one aspect that is different from at least one aspect of at least one of the plurality of memory circuits. Such aspect includes a signal, a capacity, a timing, and/or a logical interface.
Abstract
A system and method are provided for use in the context of a plurality of memory circuits. In use, first information is received in association with a first operation to be performed on at least one of the memory circuits. At least a portion of the first information is stored. Still yet, second information is received in association with a second operation to be performed on at least one of the plurality of memory circuits. To this end, the second operation may be performed utilizing the stored portion of the first information in addition to the second information.
System and Method for Translating an Address Associated with a Command Communicated between a System and Memory Circuits (20070192563)
Abstract
A memory circuit system and method are provided. An interface circuit is capable of communication with a plurality of memory circuits and a system. In use, the interface circuit is operable to translate an address associated with a command communicated between the system and the memory circuits.
It does logically follow that Google would be looking at hardware methods to increase performance as well. Particularly ways of saving resources (equipment using less power etc) to shave a bit off their operating costs.
Hi James,
It does make sense, doesn’t it. The acquisition of MetaRam’s patent filings is a pretty serious move, considering how many patent filings were involved, and the potential impact on Google’s computing power if they were to incorporate the memory boost that the technology can bring to them. I’m still wondering if the people associated with MetaRAM have moved to Google along with the technology.
Just question, frankly I didn’t read all the patent abstracts there is way too much, question is there has been reports saying that caffine is faster than older Google but the truth may be its just their upgrades on the hardwares what you think? Plus could it be that new search engine demands more resources from hardware point of view?
Thanks
Hi seoyourblog,
I was overwhelmed by the number of patent filings myself – it took a while to go through all of them, but I wanted to make sure that they were all assigned to Google, and on the same day, and that they all focused upon memory and hardware. I thought it was worth sharing links to all of the filings for anyone who might be interested in seeing more, but I’m not anticipating too many people going through all of those abstracts.
From what I’ve read, the upgrades related to Google’s Caffeine should reduce bottlenecks in the way that information is retrieved from Google’s databases by making changes to how information on different chunk servers are accessed. While there could possibly be some hardware changes involved, it sounds like the primary change involved is in how the Google File System works.
I don’t think that hardware changes are at the root of the Caffeine upgrade, but it does look like MetaRAM was actually producing chips that could be used with the kind of servers that Google may be using. Adding more hardware based memory may make a significant impact on Google’s servers
It seems odd to me that Google would buy a patent on faster RAM just to use it in their servers – that doesn’t make sense to me. If they wanted to improve the performance of their hardware, you would think that there would be countless ways for them to do that which don’t require a patent on new memory modules. I don’t know what they paid for this, but it seems to me that if they needed more “brute force” in their computing environment that they could easily just buy more servers and get the job done a lot cheaper. I have a very hard time believing that RAM was a significant enough bottleneck in their systems that they needed to go out and acquire a patent on new RAM technology — that just can’t be a cost effective way of increasing the power of your hardware.
I think this is more likely to be unrelated to Caffeine. I mean how much sense does it make for them to acquire a memory patent just to use it in house and keep somebody else from getting it? It just doesn’t give them a big enough competitive advantage in any of their core markets to warrant acquiring for those purposes, IMO.
Could this be part of Google’s rumored router? If Google is in fact making it’s own uber-powerful line of routers, owning the patent on state-of-the-art memory modules makes a lot of sense. Very busy routers have huge demands.
My understanding is that Netlist, Inc. has brought patent infringement against first to MetaRAm and then Google for ‘386 patent related to breakthrough memory module exhibited recently at SuperComputing 09. Netlist in 2006 or thereabouts approached Google to discuss under an MOU to provide Google with breakthrough memory modules. Google ultimately declined. Netlist brught patent infringement against MetaRAM, and was in settlement discussion with Google when Google brought a pre-emptive lawsuit for declaratory relief that it is not infringing on Netlist ‘386 patent; and even if it was infringing such patent, Google claims it is moot because such Netlist patent is invalid. See the Complaint and Answer and Counter-Complaint from Netlist which action is in central district court CA.
Netlist symbol is NLST. For transparency, I own less than 20k shares in NLST, but have no insider information or have any relation to either company. It is advisable to do your own research.
Hi Buzzlord,
It wasn’t just one patent – the USPTO assignment database shows 49 patent filings assigned from MetaRAM to Google. There’s a possibility that Google may already be using some of this memory technology, though I haven’t seen anything yet that says so explicitly. A Google router sounds interesting – more research for me to do. Thanks.
Thank you, Auditor.
I appreciate your providing some details about this controversy. I’ve started to do some research.
The patent from Netlist in question appears to be this one:
Memory module decoder
Abstract
InformationWeek wrote about Google’s response to a number of letters from NetList in an article titled Google Launches Pre-Emptive Lawsuit Against Memory Maker. It appears that Google received proposals in 2006 from NetList for server memory, but decided to use another supplier. In May of 2008, NetList’s CEO sent a letter to Google which claimed that the memory Google chose infringed NetList’s patent.
Google filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Netlist, Inc., on August 29, 2008, asking a Federal District Court in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, for a judgment stating that “Google does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘386 patent” or alternatively “That the ‘386 patent is invalid.”
According to a docket that I could find for the case, Netlist filed an answer and a counterclaim on November 18, 2008:
Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.
U.S. District Court
California Northern District (Oakland)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:08-cv-04144-SBA
Assigned to: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
Cause: 35:145 Patent Infringement
Date Filed: 08/29/2008
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
In the Netlist Form 10-Q filing of November 3, 2009 are these statements about litigation between Google and Netlist, and Netlist and MetaRAM:
I did find some more information about the lawsuits between Netlist and MetaRAM, though I don’t know how up to date the following dockets are:
Netlist Inc. v. MetaRAM Inc.
U.S. District Court
District of Delaware (Wilmington)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cv-00165-GMS
Assigned to: Judge Gregory M. Sleet
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Date Filed: 03/12/2009
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Metaram, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.
U.S. District Court
California Northern District (San Francisco)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09-cv-01309-VRW
Assigned to: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
Demand: $0
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Date Filed: 03/25/2009
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
All very intriguing Bill. I tend to agree with Buzzlord though. I don’t feel all this is Caffeine related. Hadn’t heard about this Google router before. Also intriguing.
I don’t mean to be throwing up old rumors, but the Google router rumor ran rampant last January. I haven’t heard much of anything about it since then though… The rumor was that Google was going to make routers to compete with the Juniper line of products. If Google is acquiring technology like this though – it could mean it is for real.
The thing that gets me is that when Google was making the Android OS, technology journalists kept asking if they would make a phone. Google’s response was always “We do not make hardware.” If you don’t make hardware at all… what would you need with patents for RAM?
All of you are missing the point. MetaRAM allows to “hang” a lot of GBs off each CPU. Server apps, which is what of interest to Google, need as much GBs as possible. When you run multiple OS’es on top of VMware, e.g., which is also a typical server configuration / application, you can easily gobble up TBs of RAM. Google has been designing its own server HW for at least 7 years. Rumor has it that its HW group is less than stellar. It is only logical that Google bought MetaRAM IP portfolio for dime a dozen. Netlist should shut up and pack up – not to pick a war with Google over this. They are trying to claim priority over what may be similar – if not identical – to JEDEC JC LR-DIMM work. Interestingly, Inphy has not been mention by anyone on this blog. That’s how clueless everyone is.
My guess is that former employees of MetaRAM have not changed their profiles because many have not landed new jobs yet.
I am agree with Bullaman, I thing it is all to increase the performance to face the upcoming challenges by bing and yahoo.
Netlist (NLST) has patent infringement cases against MetaRAM as well as Inphi.
Netlist has serious IP in “rank multiplication”, “embedded passives” (for freeing up space on memory modules for memory), heat dissipation that is even (so that there is more tolerance for using lower quality memory chips which are cheaper to use).
GOOG was using MetaRAM. Memory module makers were using MetaRAM, Intel was supporting it. It was the darling of the industry. Except that it was infringing on Netlist’s IP.
Then MetaRAM went out of business.
http://venturebeat.com/2008/08/19/idf-intel-gets-behind-start-up-metarams-server-memory-solution/
IDF: Intel gets behind start-up MetaRAM’s server memory solution
August 19, 2008
Google probably does not want to jeopardize it’s server operations to a “small” (compared to Google’s size) legal issue with Netlist.
Google and Netlist are in negotatiations to cobble together an agreement. That must have been hard while MetaRAM IP was not under Google’s belt (now that MetaRAM is gone).
This is probably why Google has had to buy MetaRAM IP, so it can get a better agreement with Netlist.
Inphi makes components – it makes an “iMB” buffer chip that it wants to sell to memory module makers. Inphi has no IP (intellectual property) in this area. It is probably hoping the memory module makers will deal with infringement issues. However Netlist has filed a suit against Inphi.
The memory module makers are waiting for JEDEC to put it’s foot down. Until that happens they probably have to wait.
Meanwhile Netlist is already manufacturing the 16GB HyperCloud memory.
From Google’s point of view, there is now no competitor to Netlist. Netlist’s IP is strong, and MetaRAM is not even a company anymore. Inphi is making components for memory module makers but holds no IP.
You can understand this probably makes Google jittery regarding the supply of these new memory modules, since Google is probably a big consumer of high-memory loaded computers. The availability of Netlist’s 16GB HyperCloud memory module allows it to double capacity without having to install additional servers (for memory-bound tasts, such as virtualization/cloud-computing).
As long as the legal issues do not get resolved, Inphi and memory module makers will be wary of who do partner with to build the memory needed by Google.
Meanwhile Netlist can provide that memory right now. Using it’s 16GB HyperCloud, Google can install 384GB of memory per server (doubling memory, with would otherwise require adding additional servers).
Netlist allows doubling of memory, reduction in power consumption (which can be a lot for a heavily memory-loaded machine) and speed improvements. By avoiding adding new servers, you cut power consumption (as well as UPS and generator power requirements for data centers).
What do you think Google will do ? It probably wants to resolve the memory use issue, so it can continue forward.
Hi Bullaman,
It does sound like Caffeine is independent, doesn’t it. Going to look for more on the router.
Hi Buzzlord,
I’m still puzzling out why Google decided to invest in 49 patent filings involving memory. Internal uses only? Maybe. Though the patent infringement lawsuits can make one wonder.
Hi InTheKnow,
Thanks for a very interesting comment.
It did seem that Google would be interested in using MetaRAM’s technology for their own hardware.
Interestingly, Inphy filed a patent infringement suite earlier today against Netlist. The press release they issued included some specifics:
I looked up the patents:
Programmable strength output buffer for RDIMM address register (7,307,863)
Abstract
Output buffer with switchable output impedance (7,479,799)
Abstract
Things seem to be heating up.
Hi humza,
It’s beginning to sound like a possibility that Google may have been using MetaRAM’s technology for a while. That would make some sense.
Hi netlist_follower,
Thank you for your insight on this topic – much appreciated. I didn’t check into the Netlist lawsuit against Inphy yet, but that sounds like a good next step.
Inphy does have a number of patents, and it seems that they are now claiming that the two I listed a couple of comments ago are being infringed upon by Netlist in their modules, including the 16 GB HyperCloud memory.
Interesting speculation as well on Google’s acquisition of MetaRAM’s intellectual property. I imagine that Google will be happy to resolve these issues. Now that they own all of those patent filings, I’m wondering what their next steps might be, other than pursuing their declaratory injunction and defending the suite brought by Netlist.
I have a very hard time believing that RAM was a significant enough bottleneck in their systems that they needed to go out and acquire a patent on new RAM technology — that just can’t be a cost effective way of increasing the power of your hardware.
I am going to go with the general opinion here that it does seem unlikely but we have confirmation that they are doing this and there will be a reason behind it.
I am far from an expert on patents and dont really know how the work and what level of protection they offer but surely there has to be some visibility on these things to challenge them prior to becoming law? I know from watching Dragons den that what offers protection in one country does not always work in another.
Googles veil of mist and secrecy is half the fascination, part of me (the cynic) always thinks PR….
Hi Bill,
Update on Netlist v Google litigation. After a hotly contested hearing on 11/12/09, the Hon. Armstrong issued an order dated 11/16/09 in favor of Netlist’s ‘386 patent claim construction. On 11/18/09 or so, Google changed the attorney.
On 11/24/09 in Netlist v MetaRAM joint case mgmt statement, MetaRAM disclosed additional comment that it “ceased operations, and prior to then sold only approximately $37,000 worth of DDR3 memory controllers subject to lawsuit. None of those memory controllers were used by MetaRAM’s customers in commercial sales, and instead all were destroyed.” In the following sentence, MetaRAM referenced Google v Netlist as related case. Actions speak louder than words. A reasonable inference is that MetaRAM has taken drastic action to reduce and limit any potential liability from alleged patent infringement. Can you guess the identity of the MetaRAM’s customer, and why $37,000 worth of non-commercial DDR3 memory controllers were destroyed?
In re Netlist v Inphi, my understanding is that Netlist’s IP portfolios are continuation of its earlier patents. In fact, Netlist received more patent(s) in November 2009.
IMHO, Netlist is a logical acquisition target for Google, CISCO, Intel or even Microsoft in 2Q/3Q of 2010. Then again, you never know about tech stocks.
I wonder if the Nov 12, 2009 court order has anything to do with NLST stock price rise starting Nov 11-12.
Evidently as you load memory, the allowable bandwidth tends to go downhill. NLST’s HyperCloud memory module (demoed at Supercomputer Expo 2009 on HP ProLiant servers) doubles max memory to 384GB, while retaining ability to operate at max speed.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/netlist-demonstrates-new-hypercloud-memory-modules-at-supercomputing-09-70174702.html
Netlist Demonstrates New HyperCloud Memory Modules at Supercomputing 09
Showcases interoperability between standard JEDEC server memory solutions and HyperCloud modules
NLST HyperCloud presentation:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22814075/Hyper-Cloud-Press-Presentation-11-4-09
It is also lower power (for maxed memory could be significant), but more significantly in applications which were previously memory-bound (as GOOG’s might be or in virtualization where you need to keep “virtual images” in memory) it halves the need for servers (which means you halve the need for power and REDUNDANT power i.e. UPSs, and generators).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/11/netlist_hypercloud_memory/
Netlist goes virtual and dense with server memory
So much for that Cisco UCS memory advantage
By Timothy Prickett Morgan
Posted in HPC, 11th November 2009 18:01 GMT
…
The one cost that Duran did not calculate was savings in power and cooling, but the HyperCloud memory burns under 10 watts for a 16GB module, and in general, for a given capacity, a HyperCloud module will burn 2 to 3 watts less than a standard DDR3 module. And because HyperCloud memory can run at the full 1.33GHz speed, regardless of the capacity in the box, there should be a sizeable performance boost on applications that are sensitive to memory bandwidth – maybe as high as 50 per cent, says Duran.
NLST had shown this technology to GOOG some time back. Later GOOG had chosen to go with what now seems like MetaRAM (though as poster above suggests MetaRAM – now GOOG – claims not much was used ?).
NLST sent notice to GOOG about use of infringing technology. GOOG in turn sued to be left alone.
GOOG’s acquisition of MetaRAM’s IP is thus in line with it consolidating it’s defence against NLST suit (wouldn’t want to have MetaRAM in bankruptcy slacking off in defence since it would impact GOOG as a user of MetaRAM).
With the demise of MetaRAM, the only infringers left are Inphi, a component manufacturer. It probably seeks to offload infringing issues to memory makers. However memory makers are waiting for JEDEC to decide what to do with NLST in control of much of the IP in “rank multiplication”.
Earlier the memory module makers were allying with MetaRAM to supply them the technology. With MetaRAM no more, they will be looking to Inphi to provide them the technology. However Inphi has no IP in this area (the retaliatory lawsuit brought against NLST mentions some unrelated patents that Inphi holds).
http://www.inphi.com/news-events/press-releases-and-media-alerts/inphi-announces-availability-of-industrys-first-memory-buffer-based-on-its-isolation-memory-buffer-technology.php
Inphi announces availability of industry’s first memory buffer based on its isolation memory buffer technology
Inphi component enables servers and workstations to handle greater volumes of data and support more memory modules
…
Since first unveiling details of its iMB technology in June 2009, Inphi has worked closely with the JEDEC standards body and with the entire server technology ecosystem to make the benefits of the iMB technology available in standardized form. Of the multiple approaches to memory buffer (MB) technology, JEDEC has chosen Inphi’s single-chip configuration as the basis for the standard, which is expected to be finalized in the first quarter of 2010. At that time, Inphi plans to have JEDEC-compliant iMB parts available.
http://www.inphi.com/news-events/inphi-in-the-news/2009/enterprise-memory-for-energystar-systems.php
Enterprise Memory for EnergyStar Systems
Thursday, 12 November 2009
…
With the release of the energy star rating for compute servers, there has been a number of approaches to meet the requirement and increase density & performance. Standards communities such as JEDEC, the 40G/100G networking associations are currently finalizing adoption of the the iMB (Isolation Memory Buffer) technology for new high performance memories. The use of this technology creates a new class of memory module called the LRDIMM (Load Reduced Dual Inline Memory Module). This technology was developed by Inphi, a ten year old high speed analog semiconductor company from Sunnyvale CA.
…
The LRDIMMs are being built by Hynix Samsung, Micron, Naya and others using the Inphi chips in Q1 ‘10. The products are currently only for the Enterprise class EnergyStar applications as the Inphi chip that is being used costs about $25US in 100k qty. The advantage of the technology is the power reduction and density/performance improvement while still maintaining the 10-12 BER and supporting a single chip/ single cycle load for both command and address signals.
By acquiring MetaRAM’s IP, GOOG along with NLST now hold the keys to the new JEDEC LRDIMM standard which is being hashed out.
http://www.simmtester.com/PAGE/news/showpubnews.asp?num=167
What is LR-DIMM , LRDIMM Memory ? ( Load-Reduce DIMM)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
CSCO’s UCS strategy does the same thing, except it seeks to put an ASIC on the motherboard and sell it’s servers.
In contrast NLST’s solution is to put the ASIC on the memory module itself. Thereby allowing it to be used as a regular memory module.
Here is an article which explains the difference:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/11/netlist_hypercloud_memory/
Netlist goes virtual and dense with server memory
So much for that Cisco UCS memory advantage
By Timothy Prickett Morgan
Posted in HPC, 11th November 2009 18:01 GMT
http://www.ideationcloud.com/2009/11/12/after-metaram-enter-netlist-hypercloud-and-more-memory-for-all-types-of-servers/
After MetaRAM, enter Netlist: HyperCloud and more memory for all types of servers
By Tarry Singh at 12 November, 2009, 2:03 am
I don’t know what MetaRAM was expecting to do earlier – either it was asserting IP like NLST is with JEDEC, or MetaRAM was acting as supplier of chips (like Inphi – though Inphi holds little IP in this area).
MetaRAM holds IP in the area, but on stuff like stacked DRAMs etc. which NLST has said is inefficient for even heat dissipation etc.
Here is some more info on the limits to memory capacity:
http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid80_gci1358898,00.html
Cisco’s hopes its Extend Memory technology will boost UCS
By Bridget Botelho, News Writer
10 Jun 2009
…
Adding capacity
In traditional systems, the CPU memory controller can use only a certain number of DIMMs and, thus, seeks out that number. The latest Intel Xeon 5500, for instance, can address up to 12 or 18 DIMMs, though it poses a performance tradeoff for the latter, David Lawler, Cisco’s vice president of platform products, told SearchDataCenter.com.
Cisco’s Extend Memory technology makes a CPU see one DIMM as four separate DIMMs, giving a single 12-DIMM server the memory capacity of 48 DIMMs and up to 384 GB of memory.
To address this issue, Cisco engineers placed a high-performance chip on the memory bus between the processor and the DIMM that changes the way the CPU searches for DIMMs, Lawler explained. “So when the CPU searches for an 8 GB DIMM, we can represent that as four 2 GB DIMMs instead,” he said.
…
Whether a CPU accesses an 8 GB DIMM or four 2 GB DIMMs makes no difference from a capacity standpoint, but using more, smaller DIMMS versus fewer, larger DIMMs is cheaper. An 8 GB DIMM is significantly more expensive than buying four 2 GB DIMMs because the cost of memory increases exponentially with density. A 2 GB DIMM, for example, costs around $125, but an 8 GB DIMM can cost more than $1,000.
…
Servers hosting virtual machines with large databases can run out of memory far before they run out of CPU power, so having that extra memory capacity to work with could be a strong selling point for Cisco.
“On a normal host, memory usually is the first resource we’re short on. When the CPU of a fully loaded ESX box is still at 60%, we often run into memory shortage,” said virtualization expert Gabrie van Zanten.
On the Ars OpenForum IT community site, one Unix administrator and virtualization user listed the “huge memory density with full-size blades” on UCS as one reason he may switch from Dell blade servers to the UCS.
Google probably owns the fastest CPU’s and ram a server could hold but why upgrade? Maybe their trying to fix some server hardware errors, or they are up to something, since they started engineering a google phone why not try their hands on google routers, that would be cool!
Hypothetically speaking if Google is venturing out to manufacture servers to compete against Cisco, it would make sense for Cisco to acquire Netlist and Broadcom. That is assuming that either is up for sale. My understanding is that Netlist insiders hold 51% of its stock. They have the manufacturing plant in China to capitalize on this Hypercloud R&D investment. I will vote for the underdog to knock out the giant. Bigger they are, the harder they fall. I’ve got more DD to conduct to set entry level for Netlist and Broadcom.
Hi Bill,
Based on my reading of Inphi and Netlist patent history and portfolio, I agree with Netlist legal counsel’s opinon that Inphi’s retaliatory infringement claims have no merit. My research shows the following:
Netlist’ IP attorneys of record: Knobbe, Martin, Olson & Bear
7,289,386, patent date: October 30, 2007
Appl. No.: 11/173,175
Filed: July 1, 2005
Inphi’s IP attorneys of record: Koppel, Patrick, Heybl & Dawson
7,307,863, patent date: Dec. 11, 2007
Appl. No.: 11/195,910
Filed: Aug. 2, 2005
Inphi’s 2nd patent referenced in lawsuit
7,479,799, patent date: Jan 20, 2009
Appl. No.: 11/376,593
Filed: Mar. 14, 2006
Netlist’s ‘386 patent has also can claim benefit of its prior related patents.
7,289,386, patent date: October 30, 2007
Appl. No.: 11/173,175
Filed: July 1, 2005
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
The present application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/075,395, filed Mar. 7, 2005, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/550,668, filed Mar. 5, 2004 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/575,595, filed May 28, 2004. The present application also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/588,244, filed Jul. 15, 2004, which is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein.
Slice of Netlist’s patent summary and description is:
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS
Various types of memory modules 10 are compatible with embodiments described herein. For example, memory modules 10 having memory capacities of 512-MB, 1-GB, 2-GB, 4-GB, 8-GB, as well as other capacities, are compatible with embodiments described herein. In addition, memory modules 10 having widths of 4 bytes, 8 bytes, 16 bytes, 32 bytes, or 32 bits, 64 bits, 128 bits, 256 bits, as well as other widths (in bytes or in bits), are compatible with embodiments described herein. Furthermore, memory modules 10 compatible with embodiments described herein include, but are not limited to, single in-line memory modules (SIMMs), dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs), small-outline DIMMs (SO-DIMMs), unbuffered DIMMs (UDIMMs), registered DIMMs (RDIMMs), fully-buffered DIMM (FBDIMM), mini-DIMMs, and micro-DIMMs.
. . .
Memory Density Multiplication
In certain embodiments, two memory devices having a memory density are used to simulate a single memory device having twice the memory density, and an additional address signal bit is used to access the additional memory. Similarly, in certain embodiments, two ranks of memory devices having a memory density are used to simulate a single rank of memory devices having twice the memory density, and an additional address signal bit is used to access the additional memory. As used herein, such simulations of memory devices or ranks of memory devices are termed as “memory density multiplication,” and the term “density transition bit” is used to refer to the additional address signal bit which is used to access the additional memory.
In certain embodiments utilizing memory density multiplication embodiments, the memory module 10 can have various types of memory devices 30 (e.g., DDR1, DDR2, DDR3, and beyond). The logic element 40 of certain such embodiments utilizes implied translation logic equations having variations depending on whether the density transition bit is a row, column, or internal bank address bit. In addition, the translation logic equations of certain embodiments vary depending on the type of memory module 10 (e.g., UDIMM, RDIMM, FBDIMM, etc.). Furthermore, in certain embodiments, the translation logic equations vary depending on whether the implementation multiplies memory devices per rank or multiplies the number of ranks per memory module.
My understanding is that Google, MetaRAM and Inphi has weak argument why they should not have to pay for “alleged” patent infringement. Equity and corporate ethics favor Netlist.
Please do your own DD and come to your own conclusion. Happy holidays . . .
Hi Inspirational,
I’m not sure that Google acquired MetaRAM’s intellectual property solely to increase the power of there technology, but I would say that memory modules like this would be helpful in getting rid of some bottlenecks.
Hi Jimmy,
The patent process is pretty involved, and does amount in a fair amount of scrutiny. Some patents require a fair amount of knowledge to understanding what they cover – I’m not going to begin to claim that I have enough of that knowledge when it comes to these patents focusing upon memory.
Hi Auditor,
Thanks for the updates. At this point, I’m wondering what kind of memory Google is actually using in their servers.
Would they build servers in competition against companies like Cisco? Funnier things have happened when it comes to a business developing technology and processes in response to a need, and finding that they have the possibility of a whole new revenue stream. It’s a little tempting to think that if Google were to want to go in that direction that they might start considering Netlist as an acqusition target. I’m not sure if that’s a possibility, or if it is feasible. I still find myself questioning Google’s motivations in acquiring MetaRAM’s IP, especially knowing about ongoing litigation.
Hi netlist,
There was also a drop in Netlist’s stock when the Inphy countersuit was announced, regardless of Netlist’s statements that the countersuit had no merit. I appreciate your extensive updates. Thank you. I’m going to have to find some time to look through all the references that you pointed towards this weekend.
Hi Mal,
I’m not sure that it’s safe to presume what Google is running on their servers at this point. One thing is for certain – there are a lot of lawyers involved in the thick of things here. It’s going to be interesting seeing how all of this plays out.
There’s something interesting here.
1. Google, Netlist then Metaram and Inphi are tangled up in lawsuits
2. Netlist stock shoots up and folks make money
Connected? I think Metaram was selling a lot of DDR2 memory to Google and others (for AMD servers) and about to sell DDR3 for Intel servers. There was a lot of press on Metaram and DDR2 in Feb 2008. Netlist threatens Google. Metaram gets hit with a lawsuit by Netlist. Google buys Metaram. Someone believes Netlist will settle and get the Google and other business. Smacks of insider trading. Search for CEO and board members for these companies and you get to Fred Weber (Metaram CEO) and Atiq Raza (board member) who worked together at AMD. Search on Raza and insider trading and you find he settled an insider trading suit. Remember Hector Ruiz at AMD?
Insider trading!
Bill and Auditor: I took a look at your postings. It seems there are 5 lawsuits:
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=39876
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=44941
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=45344
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=50603
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=52389
You can see all the details via PACER of course, http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/
There’s a lot on Google v. Netlist. Not so much on the others. Your comments on the patent sale are interesting. The one MetaRam patent in the case against Netlist is 7,472,220. This patent is still assigned to MetaRam, but has a terminal disclaimer.
See the first page http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7472220
From http://www.freepatentsonline.com/help/item/Terminal-Disclaimer.html
“A binding statement made with the Patent Office in a case where more than one patent
has been obtained by the inventor on the same invention. The disclaimer will state
that the later patent will expire at the same time as the former patent and the later
patent will be enforceable only as long as both the patents are commonly owned.”
According to PAIR there are 3 patents that have to be commonly owned with 7,472,220:
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
11/461439 now US 7,580,312 (transferred according to your list)
11/524812 now US 7,386,656 (transferred according to your list)
11/584179 now US 7,581,127 (not on your list but assigned to Google according to the USPTO records)
There are currently 10 patents granted to MetaRam according to the USPTO, you listed 9, the last above is the extra one.
I will be interested to see how MetaRam and Google handle this with Netlist. If MetaRam doesn’t have rights to enforce this patent any more, they may have to drop their case against Netlist or perhaps Google has to take over. Then interesting things may happen.
Do either of you have any more information?
Hi IP Agent,
Thank you very much for your followup on this. When I originally checked at the USPTO assignment database. I did only see 49 granted patents and patent applications, but now I’m seeing 50. US 7,581,127 is on my list above (fourth one down), but I didn’t include 7,472,220, and I’m not sure why.
There’s a new patent application now listed in both lists as well, 20090290442, which wouldn’t have shown up in either search since it wasn’t published until November 26th, but it was assigned to Google on November 18th as well (Unpublished patent applications aren’t displayed in the assignment database at the USPTO). That explains why there are now 50 showing, instead of 49.
It’s possible that when I searched in the Assignment Database on MetaRAM, I looked in the “Assignor Name” field instead of the “Assignee Name:” field, which would have meant that I would miss 7,472,220, since it doesn’t appear to have been assigned to Google.
What’s odd is that the USPTO assignment database now lists 50 granted patents and patent applications as having been assigned to MetaRam, and 50 granted patents and pending patent applications as being assigned by MetaRam, and and they aren’t the same 50. I’m going to have to check on why there is a mismatch.
The granted patent you’ve pointed out is:
Interface circuit system and method for performing power management operations utilizing power management signals.
Interesting. Thank you.
IP Agent and Bill,
Above referenced MetaRAM patent application disloses Netlist patent work under Bakhta that was filed in 2005. Since Netlist claims Hypercloud is interoperable, can it work for Cisco legacy servers and routers without upgrading to new CPU? Has neutral or OEM eval/review been conducted on Hypercloud? Can Hypercloud be reconfigured for laptop or desktop use?
Interesting patent info.
auditor:
NLST claims HyperCloud will work like regular memory. So it should work on desktops. NLST probably isn’t making it for laptops because the form factor maybe different for laptop memory (which may or may not allow for extra circuitry). Also laptop may not be the ideal market for pushing this.
CSCO’s UCS strategy is essentially neutered by NLST HyperCloud – the difference is CSCO puts the ASIC on the motherboard while NLST puts it on the memory module itself. NLST also uses some other technologies like Planar-X and “embedded passives” to give it more space on the memory module (don’t know much about that).
NLST HyperCloud – as far as I have understood it – seems to allow greater memory density, greater memory speed and energy efficiency.
It seems as you load memory (electrical load issues ?) the achievable speed goes down. So on heavily memory-loaded systems you have the memory, but the achievable speed is not giving you the bang for the buck.
NLST HyperCloud makes the processor think less memory is on board and it runs it at full speed.
Repeating some references from above:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/11/netlist_hypercloud_memory/
Netlist goes virtual and dense with server memory
So much for that Cisco UCS memory advantage
By Timothy Prickett Morgan
Posted in HPC, 11th November 2009 18:01 GMT
…
The one cost that Duran did not calculate was savings in power and cooling, but the HyperCloud memory burns under 10 watts for a 16GB module, and in general, for a given capacity, a HyperCloud module will burn 2 to 3 watts less than a standard DDR3 module. And because HyperCloud memory can run at the full 1.33GHz speed, regardless of the capacity in the box, there should be a sizeable performance boost on applications that are sensitive to memory bandwidth – maybe as high as 50 per cent, says Duran.
NLST HyperCloud presentation:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22814075/Hyper-Cloud-Press-Presentation-11-4-09
Look at page 9 of the above Netlist HyperCloud presentation using Adobe viewer. Title is HyperCloud 2 vRank DDR3 RDIMMs. There is a picture of the Netlist memory module. Zoom in on the bottom of the memory module. Look near the notch in the connector at the bottom. Go to about 500% (times 5) magnification. The Netlist chips “Isolation devices” are different sizes, one is really squashed. The only explanation I can see is that the chip images have been pasted in using PhotoShop. Why would Netlist do that if they had real modules to demonstrate?
quote:
magnification. The Netlist chips “Isolation devices” are different sizes, one is really squashed. The only explanation I can see is that the chip images have been pasted in using PhotoShop. Why would Netlist do that if they had real modules to demonstrate?
NLST demonstrated at Supercomputer Expo 2009. Here is what HP VP had to say:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/netlist-demonstrates-new-hypercloud-memory-modules-at-supercomputing-09-70174702.html
Netlist Demonstrates New HyperCloud Memory Modules at Supercomputing 09
Showcases interoperability between standard JEDEC server memory solutions and HyperCloud modules
To showcase its 2-vRank HyperCloud modules, Netlist is using industry standard servers, such as the HP ProLiant DL380, demonstrated in the following configurations:
* 8GB and 16GB 2 vRank DDR3 RDIMM functionality
* Three 2 vRank modules per channel
* 1333 Mega Transfers per second (MT/s)
* Interoperability with standard JEDEC DDR3 modules
* Interoperability with different RDIMM capacities
“Customers running memory intensive computing environments, such as virtualization, cloud computing, and HPC applications, are often limited by memory bottlenecks in their servers,” said Mike Gill, vice president, Industry Standard Servers Platform Engineering at HP. “The Netlist technology on HP industry-standard servers increases server memory capacity and bandwidth to enhance application performance in converged infrastructures.”
Here is the JEDEC standard that Inphi wants to sell chips for, which JEDEC is mulling over, and whose final standard memory module makers are awaiting before they start using Inphi chips. However this is infringing NLST intellectual property. So until JEDEC resolves this, memory module makers and Inphi are stuck.
http://www.simmtester.com/PAGE/news/showpubnews.asp?num=167
What is LR-DIMM , LRDIMM Memory ? ( Load-Reduce DIMM)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Here is an example of MU waiting for buffers:
http://www.micron.com/products/modules/lrdimm/index
LRDIMM
quote:
But because end quality is dependent on more than just
reliability, we’re also working closely with buffer suppliers and server
OEMs to ensure that our LRDIMMs function well with multiple server
platforms.
HP has it’s own issues with CSCO’s UCS strategy (which NLST HyperCloud neuters).
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33865963
HP’s Shot Across Cisco’s Bow
Published: Wednesday, 11 Nov 2009 | 5:09 PM ET
By: Jim Goldman
CNBC Silicon Valley Bureau Chief
Earlier this year, Cisco [CSCO] opened a major front against one-time partners Hewlett-Packard [HPQ] and IBM [IBM] in the hotly competitive, and fast-growing server market with its blade, and so-called Unified Computing System initiative. The competition, and headlines it generated, become so intense so quickly that Cisco even posted a blog entitled “Is HP Now a Friend or Foe of Cisco?”
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCNN1228359720091113?rpc=44
HP still seen looking for deals after 3Com
Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:49pm EST
* Competitive pressures rising in tech with flurry of M&A
* Analyst say HP could pursue more networking deals
* Storage, software also seen as attractive to HP
* Brocade shares plunge 13 pct, unlikely target after 3Com
By Gabriel Madway
But why is Netlist “faking” pictures in a press presentation made so recently? Doesn’t seem right to me. End.
quote:
Look at page 9 of the above Netlist HyperCloud presentation using Adobe viewer. Title is HyperCloud 2 vRank DDR3 RDIMMs. There is a picture of the Netlist memory module. Zoom in on the bottom of the memory module. Look near the notch in the connector at the bottom. Go to about 500% (times 5) magnification. The Netlist chips “Isolation devices” are different sizes, one is really squashed. The only explanation I can see is that the chip images have been pasted in using PhotoShop. Why would Netlist do that if they had real modules to demonstrate?
Yes, you are right. The “buffer”-like chip to the left of the notch does look slightly smaller.
However note there are already 8 “buffer” chips there (which seems like a canonical figure if the “buffers” are for data lines). The smaller one to the left of the notch is the 9th. It might be an odd one out i.e. used for something else – maybe control signals or something like that.
After all there is no assertion that the chips are the same.
Hi Roomy Khan,
Interesting choice of names to use to post with here. I’m not sure who knows what about the inner workings of each of the companies involved, though it does appear to be a mess. I would guess that it would be unavoidable for some of the people involved in these companies not to know each other, or to have worked together, but there is the potential that something unusual might be going on. Just a quick disclaimer on my part – I own no stocks in any of the companies mentioned in this post, and in the comments to the post.
Hi auditor,
The engineering and interoperability of memory modules goes a bit outside the area of my expertise. Thankfully, netlist was able to answer your questions on that topic.
Hi netlist,
Thanks for answering auditor’s and engineer’s questions. I still have some catchup reading with the links that you’ve posted. (And I’m still wondering why Google purchased MetaRAM’s IP.)
On Dec 4, 09, Netlist brings separate suit against Google for infringing on Netlist USPTO patent 7,619,912, entitled “Memory Module Decoder” issued on Nov 17, 2009 based on patent application in mid-2005. In para 9, Netlist alleges that Google infringed on the ‘912 Patent including its use of the 4-Rank Fully Buffered Dual In-Line Memory Modules (4-Rank FBDIMMs) in its server computers.
This new Complaint significantly advances Netlist’s claims and rights against Google, because this suit comes after having examined Google’s server after winning discovery ruling from that (Google v Netlist) Court authorizing Netlist to inspect Google server despite Google’s strong objections.
Netlist Relief for Prayer includes temporary and permanent injunctive relief, and “treble damages” for unlawful practices of Google characterized as “willful and deliberate”.
This Complaint reads: “The ‘912 Patent is directed to memory modules with a logic element that overcomes computer system limitations that would otherwise constrain the memory module architectures with which the computer system can operate. As a result, the claimed memory modules effectively increase the memory capacity and improve the energy efficiency of the computers in which they reside. Netlist is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ‘912 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘912 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.” Reference Case3:09-cv-05718-EMC Filed 12/04/09
Hi Auditor,
From what little I’ve seen online regarding the injunctive relief requested on that suit, in part it asks for Google to stop using servers that use memory that infringes upon the Netlist patent. I don’t know how many servers Google uses that might include the memory modules in question, but if that is granted, it could possibly be a harsh blow to Google. Have to see if I can find a copy of the complaint.
From NLST’s complaints, and GOOG’s testimony, it seems to suggest GOOG is not just an innocuous buyer of memory from MetaRAM or some such infringer.
But GOOG seems itself to be a major party involved in issues of memory design (something which other posts here seem to suggest as well – that they had a hardware design group for such things).
NLST’s complaint includes use by GOOG of 4-rank FBDIMMs and inducing others to sell such stuff (maybe MetaRAM ?).
Patent in question is:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7619912.pdf
Just some comments on looking through the court dockets in GOOG suit against NLST.
In the previous GOOG suit against NLST, GOOG and NLST have a settlement conference in August 2010. They will probably have to thrash out an agreement before then.
In looking through court documents one can see that NLST has got access to a GOOG server (after GOOG protestations).
The protocol to be followed by NLST is outlined in:
JOINT INSPECTION PROTOCOL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
NLST gets to inspect FBDIMMs – AMB buffer manufacturer, use of “Mode C” and non-Mode C, power consumption, replace with standard FBDIMMs, monitor thermal stuff, take max of 20 photographs (”Attorney’s Eyes Only”). Inspected at GOOG lawyer’s offices (Fish and Richardson).
GOOG is saying it doesn’t contest that it is using FBDIMMS in Mode C.
It’s argument perhaps is that the NLST IP is faulty.
NLST removed Morrison and Foerster and replaced by Pruetz Law Group (which is a small outfit supposedly very good for IP).
From the docket item – “AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER”:
NLST inventors Jayesh Bhakta and Jeffrey Solomon have testified.
GOOG employees under spotlight:
Rick Roy – “involved in the development of the accused 4-rank FBDIMMs and who participated in meetings with Netlist concerning it’s patented technology”
Andrew Dorsey – same as above
Rob Sprinkle – same as above
GOOG’s main argument maybe presented in this docket item:
[REDACTED] GOOGLE INC.’s RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
Earlier Judge Armstrong denied GOOG request to include NLST ‘386 patent “prosecution history” (at the Patent Office I presume):
As auditor reported above:
Update on Netlist v Google litigation. After a hotly contested hearing on 11/12/09, the Hon. Armstrong issued an order dated 11/16/09 in favor of Netlist’s ‘386 patent claim construction. On 11/18/09 or so, Google changed the attorney.
The Nov 12, 2009 order states:
THIS COURT HOLDS THAT pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) and this Court’s Standing Order at Paragraph
10, because the ‘386 Patent’s prosecution history is not in evidence and not addressed in either
parties’ claim construction papers, Netlist’s objection is sustained.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Google and its counsel shall not present, refer to,
comment upon, introduce or use in any way, the ‘386 Patent’s prosecution history in its claim
construction presentation.
From docket item # 27:
GOOG does not dispute it is using “Mode C” in it’s FBDIMMs.
From docket #27:
NLST wants to see GOOG servers so it can verify they are using what JEDEC refers to as “Mode C” to make it seem like there are fewer ranks of memory than actually are on the memory module.
From GOOG’s account, they say in early 2006, GOOG was looking for manufacturers and tester of it’s FBDIMMs. It discussed with various companies (including NLST).
They signed NDAs to see GOOG’s FBDIMM design.
“GOOG does not dispute that it’s FBDIMMs operate in Mode C” ..
Earlier GOOG had said (docket #33 documents) that it may call Desi Rhoden (Exec. VP of Inphi) to explain rank etc.
That witness maybe less of an impartial “expert” after NLST vs. Inphi.
The impression one gets from the docket info in GOOG’s suit against NLST, is that GOOG was not just a customer of MetaRAM, but an active developer of memory, and that it was a user of privileged information that NLST gave to GOOG when NLST proposed new memory for GOOG.
Whether that info leakage had any link back to MetaRAM (through GOOG) is another story.
Another point of view of Netlist vs Google, notes the lobbying by Google asking that changes be made in current patent law. One would wonder if Google understands that it has a weak case against Netlist. Not to say that the efforts of Google to have laws changes are made wholely against Netlist, but companies like Netlist. I would hope for the sake of inovation that small companies like Netlist are not stripped of their ability to bring new ideas to market and be rewarded for their efforts.
The last post was a bit haphazard – just a quick run through the filings.
In answer to the potential question – “does NLST HyperCloud really work”, I guess we have confirmation from GOOG’s extensive use of “Mode C” in it’s servers.
This is something which has emerged from discovery in GOOG vs. NLST (the case which GOOG brought – no monetary damages, but to be left alone by NLST).
GOOG acknowledges use of “Mode C”. This means their thrust will primarily be on claiming non-validity of NLST IP. However NLST IP goes back to March 2004 (according to NLST filings) on the ‘386 patent. This predates MetaRAM IP (which GOOG has now bought in a panic to ensure that a MetaRAM loss while lax in bankruptcy does not wind up screwing GOOG in it’s own case).
I am not sure about the relationship between GOOG and MetaRAM – it is possible that the “other manufacturer” that GOOG used to manufacture was MetaRAM (?). There are few other players in this space – MetaRAM is dead, and Inphi is a generic component manufacturer and holds little IP – and they are awaiting JEDEC FBDIMM “Mode C” proposed standard results before module makers decide what to do.
In GOOG vs. NLST (the case which GOOG brought in order to get relief), GOOG has had to furnish it’s server – which has led to discovery has led to the recent NLST vs. GOOG lawsuit (which refers to another NLST patent as well). GOOG has lost claim that NLST patent history should be examined in the proceedings.
This seems to be the status thus far.
Dec 17, 2009 – the GOOG vs. NLST and more recent NLST vs. GOOG (concerning another patent infringement that NLST alleges following discovery in GOOG vs. NLST) have now been consolidated.
Evidently both NLST and GOOG wanted the two cases to be combined together. Accordingly new court dates have been set.
Hi spencity,
I have seen other places where Google had been asking for patent reform, before any hints of this litigation came out. The patent process itself does seem to be much more difficult for smaller businesses. I don’t know enough about the facts behind the Google/Netlist ligitation to decide the strength of their case, but more seems to be coming out.
Hi netlist,
I’m still not certain of the relationship between Google and MetaRAM at this point either. I did notice a few more patent filings assigned from MetaRAM to Google a week after the initial batch of assignments.
I do appreciate the updates. Consolidating the cases does make sense, just on the basis of cost and judicial economy themselves. This is getting pretty interesting.
Hi Bill Slawski,
It’s interesting that Netlist did not react with a knee jerk response to Google’s court filings earlier this year by immediately counter suing. Instead Netlist chose to first pursue legal action against Inphi. It makes since to attempt to prove the legitimacy of patents in question against the smaller company in order to arm itself with court tested evidence. It will much more difficult for Google to claim that the patents in question are invalid.
If “Mode C” usage shows up in a random GOOG server, what are we talking about here ? That nearly all GOOG servers use the infringing “Mode C” ?
Since “Mode C” is a smoking gun for use of 4-rank/virtual-rank – as it seems to have BIOS report (incorrect) info to the processor so it can be fooled.
This would mean a lot more servers than claimed – MetaRAM (or was it GOOG – anyone know who said that ?) said there were only a “few” such infringing products manufactured. Does not seem like a few if all GOOG servers are tainted as the server displayed in discovery phase (for GOOG vs. NLST) was ?
I am not totally clear on this, but it seems “Mode C” is related to having (patched) BIOS report the (incorrect) memory info to the processor.
Some info on JEDEC’s FBDIMM Mode C proposed standard
http://www.jedec.org/download/search/JESD82-20A.pdf
http://www.jedec.org/download/search/JESD82-28A.pdf
Of course, this seems not to be required by the newer NLST HyperCloud memory – which is supposed to work along with other memory in unaltered motherboards.
But “Mode C” usage is indicative of an attempt to do 4-rank and so is a “smoking gun”.
thank you for this page. Got good info. top question on my mind:
1. why did metaram shut down ? Couldnt find anything. (my conspiracy theory:
Did the VCs find out the company was based on a stolen IP ? (metaram established in mid 2006, nlst patent – 7289386 filed mid 2005)
2. Is Goog collecting metaram patents to have bargaining/negotiating power with nlst ? (way patents are written there is always
room to overclaim/underclaim patent coverage, althought attorneys try to make it as broad as possible).
Hi spencity,
While the timing of filing lawsuits may have a strategy to them, I’m not sure that we can read too much into that timing sometimes. With a certain amount of time to file some claims under statutes of limitations, and other times dictated by court rules, someone filing a claim or counterclaim may not always be free to file a case in court exactly when the idea time might be to do so.
It is interesting that Netlist did first file a suite against Inphi, though.
Hi netlist,
I’ve been wondering how many Google servers might be using “Mode C” as well, and if they might be affected by the outcome of a settlement or judgment.
Hi Mike,
You’re welcome. I’m wondering the same things myself. It really was a total surprise to see all of those patent filings assigned to Google. I didn’t realize at the time that there was a hornet’s nest of litigation to go with them.
We don’t know for certain what kinds of memory modules Google uses in its servers, but a recently published study from Google on DRAM errors doesn’t mention any modules of more than 4 GB. The paper does mention that data collected from the study “covers multiple vendors, DRAM capacities and technologies, and comprises many millions
of DIMM days.”
In that paper, we’re told this about Google’s systems:
The paper is:
DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study (pdf)
It was written by Bianca Schroeder from the University of Toronto, and Google’s Eduardo Pinheiro and Wolf-Dietrich Weber. It was presented at SIGMETRICS/Performance’09, June 15–19, 2009, in Seattle, Washington.
quote:
I’ve been wondering how many Google servers might be using “Mode C” as well, and if they might be affected by the outcome of a settlement or judgment.
The court asked them to show a “GOOG server” and they show the one with “Mode C” in it. In court filings, GOOG has not mitigated impact by saying “only a few servers are implicated”. Instead they have said they are not denying use of “Mode C”, but the value of NLST’s IP.
However this is a risky tactic, as the cost of failure would be high (and possibly unacceptable) for GOOG. Which means settlement. The GOOG vs. NLST lawsuit GOOG filed in reply to NLST letter to GOOG may just have been that – to allow them time for a soft landing, esp. if they did not have good answer to NLST letters.
Does GOOG throw away old servers and continue replacing, or is the error rate such that they wind up replacing them anyway after some months ?
MetaRAM link with GOOG is unclear. My impression was it was MetaRAM which sold “infringing” modules to GOOG (NLST vs. MetaRAM).
Now it turns out GOOG was the sponsor with component specs and seeking someone to manufacture according to GOOG specs (GOOG vs. NLST court dockets).
Since MetaRAM (NLST vs. MetaRAM) claims a very small amount of sales, that would not account for the proliferation of “Mode C” in standard GOOG servers (the one GOOG showed when forced by discovery in GOOG vs. NLST). Also MetaRAM says they were not “sales” and were “destroyed”.
Question is – why would they “destroy” that hardware ?
From auditor post above:
On 11/24/09 in Netlist v MetaRAM joint case mgmt statement, MetaRAM disclosed additional comment that it “ceased operations, and prior to then sold only approximately $37,000 worth of DDR3 memory controllers subject to lawsuit. None of those memory controllers were used by MetaRAM’s customers in commercial sales, and instead all were destroyed.” In the following sentence, MetaRAM referenced Google v Netlist as related case. Actions speak louder than words. A reasonable inference is that MetaRAM has taken drastic action to reduce and limit any potential liability from alleged patent infringement. Can you guess the identity of the MetaRAM’s customer, and why $37,000 worth of non-commercial DDR3 memory controllers were destroyed?
quote:
1. why did metaram shut down ? Couldnt find anything. (my conspiracy theory:
Yes, not clear to me either (first article below). It could have been:
- the semiconductor slump (low memory prices) of that time
- serious issues with the technology not working well
- patent issues (or realization that NLST had the earlier IP, or a more comprehensive set of related IPs – for example in “embedded passives” – which would allow successful use
NLST has IP in “embedded passives” which frees up real-estate on the memory module. In addition MetaRAM has IP in “stacked modules” which NLST has criticized for it’s inability to deliver symmetric lines to memory chips:
http://www.netlist.com/technology/technology.html
While some packaging companies stack devices to double capacity, Netlist achieves the same result without stacking, resulting in superior signal integrity and thermal efficiency. Stacking components results in unequal cooling of devices, causing one device to run slower than the other in the stack. This often results in module failures in high-density applications.
The density limitation is solved by proprietary board designs that use embedded passives to free up board real estate, permitting the assembly of more memory components on the substrate. The performance of the memory module is enhanced by fine-tuning the board design to minimize signal reflections, noise, and clock skews.
This is a presentation by NLST’s Bill Gervasi on NLST’s “embedded passives” (who went on to SMOD and Chairman JEDEC DRAM Packaging Committee):
http://www.discobolusdesigns.com/personal/IMAPS_netlist_embedded_resistor_reliability_20050125.pdf
NLST’s new HyperCloud memory modules are pictured in this presentation (pg. 9):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23156890/Hyper-Cloud-Press-Presentation-11-24-09New
Hyper Cloud Press Presentation 11-24-09New
Date Added 11/25/2009
Compare that to:
MetaRAM’s modules – they do seem a bit cluttered (with possibly asymmetrical chip layout ?):
http://www.ansoft.com/ie/Track2/DDR3%20Memory%20Module%20Design.pdf
Inphi’s “iMB” buffer and a possible memory module:
LR-DIMM with Inphi’s iMB™ Component
http://www.inphi.com/images/productImageLibrary/highRes/Inphi_LR-DIMM_with_iMB_Component_gold.jpg
The article below suggests volume, power and cost will be hard to reduce. However NLST claimed just that with HyperCloud at Supercomputer Expo – that is, memory density, speed increase (for heavily memory-loaded systems which otherwise have to run at slower speeds), power reduction (since 4-rank may allow you to reduce power for “inactive” memory modules), and ability to present more memory in total than otherwise would be handleable.
The article below suggests it is a complex thing to get right – it is possible that MetaRAM was not able to get enough space on memory module for enough “decoupling capacitors” etc.
http://lynnesblog.telemuse.net/292
Feb 25, 2008
MetaRAM Busts RAMBUS Stranglehold?
Snake oil or salvation from former AMD CTO,
By Lynne Jolitz
…
Is the technology innovative? Not likely — it sounds like a combination cache and bank decoder, which is not innovative in the least. In fact, you need 4x the number of components on the DIMM, which means 4x the number of current spikes and decoupling capacitors, even if you put the chips together in the same package. Because you have a fifth chip, you complicate things even more. There is no way you can approach the triple-zero (volume, power, cost) sacred to chip designers with such a design, because one single high-speed high-capacity chip will eventually win out given the proliferation of small expensive gadgets demanding the lowest of volume and power. In a world of gadgets like IPODs, cellphones, laptops, PDAs and the like, cost is very important but *not* the most important quantity. So RAMBUS doesn’t have a lot to worry about here.
…
So where does little MetaRAM come in. When technology fails, maybe a clever business model will do. MetaRAM’s big claim to fame is cost reduction — not for gadgets or laptops, but according to Fred Weber, CEO of MetaRAM, for “personal supercomputers” and “large databases”. And who is the big licensee for this so-called technology. Why, it’s Hynix of course, who announced they will make this lumbering memory module. They claim it will be lower power. I think I’d like an independent evaluation on this point, but it will probably be lower cost. Is it worth it? Given reliability considerations, that also remains to be seen. But the moral of this saga is simple — human memories are longer than memory architectures in this business, and the real puppet-master behind the throne (Kleiner-Perkins) is sure to walk away with the money. I wish I could say the same for the customers.
http://mobile.chipcrunch.com/Blogs/Startup.Blurbs/Semiconductor.startups.dropping.like.flies.html
Semiconductor startups dropping like flies
Written by Maciej Bajkowski
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
…
We profiled MetaRAM in March of last year, shortly after the company emerged from stealth mode. It was backed by several prominent venture capital firms including: Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, Khosla Ventures, Storm Ventures, and Intel Capital. This just shows you that having prominent VC backing is not a guaranteed indicator of success. Already back then we had a couple of concerns regarding the MetaRAM technology: First, with increasing DRAM frequency, how long would MetaRAM be able to hide the latency of their chipset via clever buffering of reads and writes? Second, it was inevitable that memory controllers would enable support for ever larger amounts of memory, possibly making MetaRAM technology irrelevant? Whether any of these was the actually reason for the company ceasing operations we might never know. The company’s website seems to be down, and as far as I’m aware nobody has been able to reach any of the company representatives for an official comment.
The article below suggests volume, power and cost will be hard to reduce. However NLST claimed just that with HyperCloud at Supercomputer Expo – that is, memory density, speed increase (for heavily memory-loaded systems which otherwise have to run at slower speeds), power reduction (since 4-rank may allow you to reduce power for “inactive” memory modules), and ability to present more memory in total than otherwise would be handleable.
The article below suggests it is a complex thing to get right – it is possible that MetaRAM was not able to get enough space on memory module for enough “decoupling capacitors” etc.
http://lynnesblog.telemuse.net/292
Feb 25, 2008
MetaRAM Busts RAMBUS Stranglehold?
Snake oil or salvation from former AMD CTO,
By Lynne Jolitz
…
Is the technology innovative? Not likely — it sounds like a combination cache and bank decoder, which is not innovative in the least. In fact, you need 4x the number of components on the DIMM, which means 4x the number of current spikes and decoupling capacitors, even if you put the chips together in the same package. Because you have a fifth chip, you complicate things even more. There is no way you can approach the triple-zero (volume, power, cost) sacred to chip designers with such a design, because one single high-speed high-capacity chip will eventually win out given the proliferation of small expensive gadgets demanding the lowest of volume and power. In a world of gadgets like IPODs, cellphones, laptops, PDAs and the like, cost is very important but *not* the most important quantity. So RAMBUS doesn’t have a lot to worry about here.
…
So where does little MetaRAM come in. When technology fails, maybe a clever business model will do. MetaRAM’s big claim to fame is cost reduction — not for gadgets or laptops, but according to Fred Weber, CEO of MetaRAM, for “personal supercomputers” and “large databases”. And who is the big licensee for this so-called technology. Why, it’s Hynix of course, who announced they will make this lumbering memory module. They claim it will be lower power. I think I’d like an independent evaluation on this point, but it will probably be lower cost. Is it worth it? Given reliability considerations, that also remains to be seen. But the moral of this saga is simple — human memories are longer than memory architectures in this business, and the real puppet-master behind the throne (Kleiner-Perkins) is sure to walk away with the money. I wish I could say the same for the customers.
http://mobile.chipcrunch.com/Blogs/Startup.Blurbs/Semiconductor.startups.dropping.like.flies.html
Semiconductor startups dropping like flies
Written by Maciej Bajkowski
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
…
We profiled MetaRAM in March of last year, shortly after the company emerged from stealth mode. It was backed by several prominent venture capital firms including: Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, Khosla Ventures, Storm Ventures, and Intel Capital. This just shows you that having prominent VC backing is not a guaranteed indicator of success. Already back then we had a couple of concerns regarding the MetaRAM technology: First, with increasing DRAM frequency, how long would MetaRAM be able to hide the latency of their chipset via clever buffering of reads and writes? Second, it was inevitable that memory controllers would enable support for ever larger amounts of memory, possibly making MetaRAM technology irrelevant? Whether any of these was the actually reason for the company ceasing operations we might never know. The company’s website seems to be down, and as far as I’m aware nobody has been able to reach any of the company representatives for an official comment.
Just as Inphi (with it’s “iMB” buffer) is now hoping for JEDEC approval and then use by memory module makers, similiarly MetaRAM was hoping to sell the chipset (and make the memory itself also it seems).
Inphi also had a press release about the “iMB” buffer for Supercomputer Expo. What is not clear is if they actually got it working – since Inphi just sells a buffer chip component.
Since NLST seems to be claiming 4-rank (and it IS the inventor of 4-rank) then why has it not gone against memory module makers of 4-rank modules before ?
http://www.cmtlabs.com/quadfbdimm.asp
The Memory Compatibility Experts
“Quad-Rank Fully Buffered DIMMs”
Or is it that NLST has targeted the buffer chip manufacturers (MetaRAM, and now Inphi) ?
Hynix and SMOD were banking on MetaRAM at that time:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20080820PR200.html
Hynix demonstrates DDR3 R-DIMM using MetaRAM technology at IDF
Press release, August 20; Esther Lam, DIGITIMES [Wednesday 20 August 2008]
…
Hynix using MetaRAM “chipset” – MetaRAM memory module has Hynix logo on it (page 10):
http://www.ansoft.com/ie/Track2/DDR3%20Memory%20Module%20Design.pdf
http://www.epn-online.com/page/new56803/smart-launches-8gb-dual-rank-ddr2-rdimms.html
SMART launches 8GB dual-rank DDR2 RDIMMs
04/03/2008
…
The new module combines SMART’s new DDR2 packaging technologies with the MetaRAM chipset architecture.
I am trying to understand how GOOG use of “Mode C” is an indicator of infringement. Is use of 4-rank infringement ?
NLST was the originator of 4-rank. Yet it was made into a JEDEC standard.
Anyone know the history of how that worked.
But 4-rank is a JEDEC standard – if NLST was the innovator of 4-rank, how did that become standard ?
Does this mean NLST disapproves of it – including all the other manufacturers who make it ?
But lacking legal resources it is only going after a few players first ?
Bill Gervasi (now at SimpleTech) was at NLST at the time of 4-rank development.
He was also Chairman of JEDEC committee on memory modules.
http://www.docmemory.com/page/news/showpubnews.asp?title=What+is+a+4-Rank+DIMM+Memory+%3F&num=128
For a successful implementation of 4 Rank DIMM memory, System designers need to be aware of which processors and memory controllers are
enabled to support four-rank modules. Finally, it is necessary to note that byte five of the serial presence detect (SPD) describes the number of ranks on
a module
Many system designers are now are rushing to find out what “4 rank memory” is all about ?. We have the pleasure to introduce Bill Gervasi, the
inventor/initiator of the “4 rank memory”, to furthur explain the details technical details regarding 4 Rank DIMMs.
4 rank modules, recently approved by JEDEC, address this gap by allowing up to 72 DRAMs per memory slot, enabling the 32GB per CPU
capacity goal using commodity 512Mb DRAMs. When the 1Gb DRAMs are finally in mass production, 4 rank modules double the reach again
to 64GB per CPU.
netlist, thank you for sharing all of your research and reasoning on this thread. your efforts and generosity are very much appreciated.
And Bill, thank you for starting this thread about Google, MetaRAM, the patents, and the lawsuits. This is the best thread of information about Netlist that I know of. Cheers.
Happy New Year to all, and may all Netlist investors prosper.
i just reread the entire thread. want to thank auditor too, and everyone else who contributed to this thread. didn’t mean to take anyone for granted. thanks all, very helpful info & discussion.
An update on the various court cases.
Looks like NLST vs. Inphi (and retaliatory Inphi vs. NLST) are on track.
GOOG vs. NLST and NLST vs. GOOG (inspired by discovery in GOOG vs. NLST) have been consolidated (request of both GOOG and NLST) – both to be heard by Judge Armstrong.
NLST extended time to GOOG to answer to complaint by Jan 29, 2009.
Meanwhile, NLST vs. MetaRAM (and retaliatory MetaRAM vs. NLST – although MetaRAM does hold some IP, unlike Inphi) have both been retracted by both parties.
Since MetaRAM is in bankruptcy, it would want to end the case – in any case MetaRAM vs. NLST wouldn’t have much meat if they no longer own the patent they are asserting (though perhaps they could still assert harm caused by NLST while MetaRAM owned those patents).
NLST probably can’t get much from a bankrupt MetaRAM – although they MAY have been able to block the transfer of IP from MetaRAM to GOOG (since NLST had potential recoveries to make from MetaRAM estate in case of win against them for infringement).
So is this related to a gradual “understanding” in the NLST vs. GOOG case – not necessarily for settlement, but for how the case should proceed (as usually happens between two opposing legal teams – i.e. they agree on what terms the fight will proceed).
Reasons why NLST would retract case against MetaRAM
- removed MetaRAM vs. NLST (minor inconvenience that it maybe)
- reduces court costs and whittles away nonessentials (since moral victory against MetaRAM less interesting than against still healthy GOOG or Inphi) – plus same boutique lawyer team handling all cases (with allied legal firm as well)
- having retraction by MetaRAM may help them slightly in fight against GOOG (to neutralize GOOG use of MetaRAM-like arguments – since GOOG now holds MetaRAM’s IP).
Reasons why MetaRAM (while privately held shares, still a limited company ?) would retract case
- is in bankruptcy – limited options
- no real case retaliatory case against NLST (esp. true if MetaRAM folded partially because of that understanding – that they had weak hold on IP)
Does anyone know the answers to any of these questions?
1)Why did Google originally decline to use Netlist’s product, and instead order products from MetaRAM?
2)Why did MetaRAM declare bankruptcy, and are they planning to emerge from bankruptcy and continue as a private, limited company? If so, what will their business be?
3)Google is claiming that Netlist’s patents are “invalid”. In what way? What evidence or reasoning supports this argument?
4)Reportedly, neither Google nor Inphi are seeking monetary damages from Netlist, but Netlist is seeking monetary damages from Google and Inphi. Does this fact suggest that Netlist has the stronger cases against Google and Inphi?
5)When is it likely that Netlist’s new product “Hypercloud” will complete trials by OEMs, be approved and certified, be ordered in great volumes, and start generating significant earnings for Netlist?
6)How might Netlist be negatively affected by adverse judgments in the two court cases, and by the JEDEC committee’s impending decision on memory product standards?
7)If Google loses or settles the case with Netlist, is Google likely to become a paying customer of Netlist?
My thanks to anyone for their thoughts on, or answers to, these and related matters.
Two more questions and thoughts:
8)If MetaRAM is planning to emerge from bankruptcy and continue as a private company, why would they sell their many patents to Google (and be left with no IP) unless their patents do in fact infringe on Netlist’s patents, and are more of a liability than an asset going forward?
9)If MetaRAM’s many patents do infringe on Netlist’s patents, why did Google quickly buy them all from a bankrupt MetaRAM? If MetaRAM’s patents infringe on Netlist’s patents, they should be useless to Google as a legal defense in the court case with Netlist, as bargaining leverage with Netlist, and as a basis for Google or its contractors to manufacture memory products as an alternative to, and competitor against, Netlist’s memory module solution for servers.
Since Netlist sued MetaRAM over MetaRAM’s patents allegedly infringing on Netlist’s patents, Google must know that Netlist will sue Google if Google ever tries to use MetaRAM’s patents to manufacture memory products.
1)Why did Google originally decline to use Netlist’s product, and instead order products from MetaRAM?
From what we know now from court dockets – GOOG has an internal hardware group which wanted to MANUFACTURE memory modules. They discussed with various people (including NLST) about manufacturing memory modules according to GOOG specs and components. At that time NLST may have revealed the stuff they were able to offer (or may have been in process of doing – since NLST had that lull while they transitioned to China factory). In either case GOOG may have felt NLST unable to deliver at that time – plus GOOG may have wanted to do it themselves (given they had their own team inside GOOG).
Eventually they wound up using other suppliers.
This by itself does not reflect badly on NLST. What it does reveal however is that GOOG was far more (complicit) than an innocuous buyer for memory from MetaRAM or other (as I was assuming earlier). Thus a direct infringer.
2)Why did MetaRAM declare bankruptcy, and are they planning to emerge from bankruptcy and continue as a private, limited company? If so, what will their business be?
They had the support of INTC and others (basically supplying the buffer chip – like Inphi is wanting to do now). Now MetaRAM claims (in court dockets) that they only sold like $37K worth of goods (?) and “destroyed” the rest – so they aren’t infringing NLST stuff (!).
Inphi is doing similar as MetaRAM (except they only make the buffer chip – while MetaRAM had buffer chip plus ability to create memory module). However as pointed out above, MetaRAM may have used “stacking” and such means which NLST looks askance on – because of it’s asymmetric heat dissipation and line lengths (asymmetric delay on lines).
3)Google is claiming that Netlist’s patents are “invalid”. In what way? What evidence or reasoning supports this argument?
This is standard boilerplate language for anyone first response to any patent claim – you can see it in all the patent cases.
You will note GOOG “rushed” to court on NLST “letter”. This is because GOOG probably saw no (simple) answer to NLST claims in that letter – it would inevitably lead to complex arguments. So GOOG chose to take it to court (in GOOG vs. NLST). That court case wound up costing GOOG – they had to turn over a GOOG server to NLST – which resulted in discovery of “Mode C” usage and data for NLST. NLST already had counterclaims in GOOG vs. NLST, but they probably were waiting for additional data from this discovery – which they used in NLST vs. GOOG (which is more recent).
Another advantage for GOOG in going to court is it establishes an orderly method to deal with this “threat”. Since it affects the health of GOOG’s entire server infrastructure (since a typical GOOG server is using “Mode C” which is a smoking gun for “4-rank” usage), it was an essential asset to protect. Now in court proceedings, GOOG has the luxury of doing things in an orderly manner – no tension – if they are weak they settle and pay in an orderly way without any threat to GOOG’s structure. Plus they have option to do a buy deal with NLST (if NLST HyperCloud is that superior).
Circumstantial evidence suggests, GOOG purchase of MetaRAM’s assets is a ploy to gain SOME leverage. However as you have seen the MetaRAM cases have been voluntarily retracted by both NLST/MetaRAM – so this may affect GOOG adversely in that those cases don’t help it much in discovery or issues against NLST.
MetaRAM has significant IP – however it is IP in “stacked” modules and stuff which may or may not overlap NLST. Plus NLST has earlier (March 2004 antecedents) in the relevant patents.
Note also NLST position is significantly different from a year ago – at that time, even if GOOG wanted they could not have done a deal with NLST (as NLST was still going through transition to chinese factory and move off commodity memory into these high margin products).
4)Reportedly, neither Google nor Inphi are seeking monetary damages from Netlist, but Netlist is seeking monetary damages from Google and Inphi. Does this fact suggest that Netlist has the stronger cases against Google and Inphi?
NLST IS seeking damages, treble damages (for wilful violation etc.). This by itself doesn’t mean they have a “stronger” case.
The reason GOOG hasn’t claimed damages is that the tone of GOOG vs. NLST is to “please protect us from NLST” – as stated above it is basically a structured arena where GOOG can safely deal with this problem in a controlled way – i.e. if it works out good if not pay.
The reason Inphi hasn’t claimed damages, is that they have a (some would say) frivolous suit (retaliatory). Secondly they have not been damaged by NLST yet. In any case Inphi is a component maker which is not exactly focused on this niche and it’s IP is weak in this area.
On a related note, John Smolka (former Inphi employee) joined NLST recently (from SEC filing on awarding of options).
5)When is it likely that Netlist’s new product “Hypercloud” will complete trials by OEMs, be approved and certified, be ordered in great volumes, and start generating significant earnings for Netlist?
Someone else may have better insight into this.
6)How might Netlist be negatively affected by adverse judgments in the two court cases, and by the JEDEC committee’s impending decision on memory product standards?
JEDEC committee is probably conflicted, because their standard conflicts with NLST. This means MU and others will not be using Inphi buffer chips. So basically alternative to Hypercloud is on ice until JEDEC decides how to proceed.
NLST will be negatively affected if it “loses” the court cases – which is unlikely given NLST’s strong position in this area – i.e. second to none. If there is overlapping IP – then there is a settlement. In any case, there are no real “competitors” left in this area. MetaRAM was the only one who was seriously specialized in this area (and a supplier of memory buffers), plus it has some IP. Inphi does not come close. GOOG is a serious player, but it too has weak IP in this area (only the MetaRAM IP they just bought). Plus specifically in “4-rank” (i.e. “fooling” the processor/memory controller into thinking there is less memory than really is – is specifically a NLST patent having antecedents to March 2004). Plus there is a history of leakage – from Texas Instruments leakage to JEDEC committee, to MetaRAM, to GOOG discussions with NLST prior to making their own memory that fits into a “story”. Bill Gervasi – inventor of 4-rank while at NLST was later head of JEDEC committee – so there is probably some promiscuous employment (given such a small niche area).
7)If Google loses or settles the case with Netlist, is Google likely to become a paying customer of Netlist?
It is unlikely GOOG will “lose” the case – that would mean shutting down the GOOG network. It’s not like GOOG can’t pay any price that is required – so more likely is GOOG will eventually settle – either for cash sum, but more likely (to escape black eye of “do no evil” motto violation) they would opt for some “neutral” thing like overpaying for NLST memory or something. Or if GOOG is confident in own manufacturing (some have suggested their inhouse hardware division is not exactly all that great) they may license then.
Of course such a decision would have devastating consequences on the JEDEC FBDIMM “Mode C” proposed standard.
GOOG would probably like there to be a standard – for better pricing (since it is a big consumer of memory).
So one option (best for GOOG) would be some arrangement where NLST IP is allowed by NLST to become JEDEC standard – in return for something or other (i.e. shades of RMBS).
netlist,
Thank you very much for your fast and detailed reply. I’m glad you’re on this thread. All the best.
8)If MetaRAM is planning to emerge from bankruptcy and continue as a private company, why would they sell their many patents to Google (and be left with no IP) unless their patents do in fact infringe on Netlist’s patents, and are more of a liability than an asset going forward?
Unlikely that MetaRAM would emerge from bankruptcy – usually companies go into bankruptcy to shed debt. In many cases the management can continue (if resurrected) under new owners. In MetaRAM’s case the management WERE the owners. So it is unlikely to emerge AS MetaRAM.
However it lives on as GOOG-owned MetaRAM IP. Which GOOG will probably use to bolster it’s position against NLST, and possibly for future dealings with companies (since patents tend to get used as currency as well – if sued, countersue with patents other may be infringing – given the state of excessive issuance of patents in overlapping areas).
After sale of IP to GOOG, MetaRAM assets are further reduced, so “MetaRAM” of old probably will not emerge.
Think now of GOOG as the new “MetaRAM”.
9)If MetaRAM’s many patents do infringe on Netlist’s patents, why did Google quickly buy them all from a bankrupt MetaRAM? If MetaRAM’s patents infringe on Netlist’s patents, they should be useless to Google as a legal defense in the court case with Netlist, as bargaining leverage with Netlist, and as a basis for Google or its contractors to manufacture memory products as an alternative to, and competitor against, Netlist’s memory module solution for servers.
Well having those MetaRAM patents (on the cheap) is probably better than appearing in court without pants on.
Since Netlist sued MetaRAM over MetaRAM’s patents allegedly infringing on Netlist’s patents, Google must know that Netlist will sue Google if Google ever tries to use MetaRAM’s patents to manufacture memory products.
GOOG is not trying to “win” the case with the MetaRAM patents – it is just slightly “better” to have them. That is, can perhaps get away with less violation issues, or pressurize NLST on other fronts as nuisance.
However, note that GOOG situation is not symmetric with NLST. GOOG is an existing violator – so is in for some “damages”. Also if there is threat of treble damages. Not that the money will be of great concern to GOOG with it’s billions – but still as lawyers, GOOG attorneys will seek to limit damage to GOOG and avoid jury trial at the last minute.
Language is typical for such cases:
..Google’s infringing activities in the United States and this District include it’s use of 4-Rank FBDIMMs in it’s server computers and contributing to and/or inducing others to make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale such 4-Rank FBDIMMs, and/or components thereof which lack any substantive non-infringing use.
..Google’s infringement of the ‘912 patent is wilful and deliberate ..
..Netlist be awarded damages adequate to compensate Netlist for ..
..That the court award treble damages to Netlist for the unlawful practices described in this Complaint.
..That the court render judgement declaring this to be an exceptional case.
netlist,
Thanks again for your most recent post. I learned a lot of good info from it.
Overall, it seems that Netlist is in the best position. In contrast, Google and Inphi (and MetaRAM and Texas Instruments) seem to have engaged in questionable conduct, but Netlist has not, apparently.
And the fact that Netlist has a brand-new, potentially “breakthrough” product in an important niche of the emerging cloud-computing, and at a time when there are no real or strong competitors, suggests that Netlist should prosper significantly in 2010 — after a few months of resolving the current conflicts.
And since Netlist required 1-2 years and tens of millions of dollars to develop Hypercloud, it is unlikely that any serious competition to Hypercloud will appear for at least a year.
Like you, I have been thinking about Google’s founding principle and solemn commitment to “do no evil”. They appear to have violated their own values in their dealings with Netlist, so it will be interesting to see if Google redeems itself by compensating Netlist properly — eventually.
netlist,
Thanks also for your fast and detailed reply to questions 8 and 9.
I got a good laugh from your witty line about Google buying MetaRAM’s patents to avoid “appearing in court without pants on.”
I agree with you that Google’s recent purchase of patents by MetaRAM may help Google a little, but most of Google’s alleged misconduct occurred while it did not own MetaRAM’s patents. As you know, Google’s current ownership of MetaRAM’s patents will not give Google “retroactive” protection against Google’s alleged misconduct when it did not own MetaRAM’s patents.
So I also agree with you that Google appears to have knowingly and willfully infringed against Netlist’s legal rights — and therefore will eventually have to compensate Netlist to some degree. The extent of damages to Netlist and of compensation by Google is what the court will determine.
Also, the court will realize that Google did not invent anything related to MetaRAM’s patents, was not the original filer or owner of the patents, and only recently rushed to purchase MetaRAM’s entire list of patents to try to protect itself from its prior misconduct and current legal liabilities.
Under these circumstances, I doubt that the court is going to look very favorably on Google’s belatedly acquired, “second-hand” patents.
By the way, I also agree with your earlier doubts about the suspicious claims by MetaRAM that it sold only $37K worth of product and destroyed the rest of production (why was that, hmm?), and therefore, committed little or no infringement against Netlist.
Aside from wanting justice for Netlist (in court and in the market), I will be interested to eventually learn convincing explanations for many of the “mysteries” in this story.
Two corrections to my recent remarks:
1)It’s my understanding that MetaRAM claimed that it destroyed all of the products worth $37,000 that it sold, but which were never used commercially by the buyer (thought to be Google).
2)There is at least one serious competitor to Netlist’s “Hypercloud” product: Cisco. But Netlist’s product attaches directly to the memory, while Cisco’s product attaches to the motherboard. Apparently this difference gives Netlist’s product an advantage over Cisco’s product in performance.
If NLST is going after GOOG for “4-rank” usage, this is a JEDEC standard and plenty of other memory makers make 4-rank memory modules.
Or is it in some specific way that those do not infringe – or is it that they ALL infringe, it’s just that NLST has chosen the fight with GOOG (being most prominent and best player to get early resolution out of in court).
If so, that could mean JEDEC usage of NLST IP, and other memory module makers would have to fall in line if GOOG concedes ?
netlist,
If and when you can, would you please explain what you think the positive and negative effects on NLST would be if JEDEC adopts Netlist’s IP and Hypercloud technology as the JEDEC standard?
Thanks.
If and when you can, would you please explain what you think the positive and negative effects on NLST would be if JEDEC adopts Netlist’s IP and Hypercloud technology as the JEDEC standard?
I don’t know how something being a “standard” relates to something being “proprietary”. On the face of it JEDEC being a standards body just specifies a common way of doing something – and is a middle player to do that for a disparate and competitive group of companies.
It may not have anything to do with whether it is proprietary or not. Generally JEDEC would want to standardize on something that does NOT do something proprietary (to minimize costs of going with that standard).
In fact RMBS (Rambus) was accused of being part of early negotiations in standards setting process for DRAM and using that prior knowledge to patent stuff ahead of the standard process – in effect STRENGTHENING it’s hold on what would eventually become the standard. Essentially a way of herding competing manufacturers into a corner (having committed to a certain way of manufacturing) so it could squeeze out royalty payments later. In effect harming the whole purpose of the standards setting body – to make things easier (and cheaper) for the industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus
July 30, 2007, the European Commission launched antitrust investigations against Rambus, taking the view that Rambus engaged in intentional deceptive conduct in the context of the standard-setting process, for example by not disclosing the existence of the patents which it later claimed were relevant to the adopted standard. This type of behaviour is known as a “patent ambush”.
Given this context it seems reasonable that JEDEC would wait before it finalizes a proposed standard – unless of course it is assured that the license fees related to that standard are going to be “reasonable” (by NLST).
From above link:
February 5, 2007, U.S. Federal Trade Commission issued a ruling that limits maximum royalties that Rambus may demand from manufacturers of dynamic random access memory (DRAM), which was set to 0.5% for DDR SDRAM for 3 years from the date the Commission’s Order is issued and then going to 0; while SDRAM’s maximum royalty was set to 0.25%. The Commission claimed that halving the DDR SDRAM rate for SDRAM would reflect the fact that while DDR SDRAM utilizes four of the relevant Rambus technologies, SDRAM uses only two. In addition to collecting fees for DRAM chips, Rambus will also be able to receive 0.5% and 1.0% royalties for SDRAM and DDR SDRAM memory controllers or other non-memory chip components respectively.
This would suggest the JEDEC CAN wind up in a position where they are pushing a standard which is heavily tied to one company’s IP – resulting in allied royalty payments.
So on the face of it – no, it would not harm NLST if JEDEC adopts NLST-related technology as a standard. In fact it would HELP NLST – since it would herd more folks into doing things that infringe NLST IP – thereby increasing the potential royalty collection by NLST in the future (once IP issues are resolved in court).
JEDEC NOT adopting NLST-related stuff as standard doesn’t help NLST – since it means the industry is doing something that is unrelated (and thus un-royalty-collectable by NLST).
netlist,
Thank you for your thoughtful, thorough reply, as is your style.
netlist,
thank you for for clarifying this complex issue. you seem to have an excellent grasp of technology as well as legal issues. I have a question that you might be able to shed some light on. Since netlist has to buy RAM on open market, how can you be competitive compared to DRAM manufactureres such as Elpida and Micron ?
Since netlist has to buy RAM on open market, how can you be competitive compared to DRAM manufactureres such as Elpida and Micron ?
I don’t know enough about this to comment – but it seems NLST is in similar situation as other memory module makers. Which include those that do not make their own memory chips:
STEC – Simple Tech
SMOD – Smart Modular
Also it seems these memory makers themselves can be buyers of NLST-like tech. For example Hynix (one of major memory chip makers) had licensed MetaRAM:
http://lynnesblog.telemuse.net/292
Feb 25, 2008
MetaRAM Busts RAMBUS Stranglehold?
Snake oil or salvation from former AMD CTO,
By Lynne Jolitz
…
MetaRAM’s big claim to fame is cost reduction — not for gadgets or laptops, but according to Fred Weber, CEO of MetaRAM, for “personal supercomputers” and “large databases”. And who is the big licensee for this so-called technology. Why, it’s Hynix of course, who announced they will make this lumbering memory module. They claim it will be lower power. I think I’d like an independent evaluation on this point, but it will probably be lower cost. Is it worth it?
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20080820PR200.html
Hynix demonstrates DDR3 R-DIMM using MetaRAM technology at IDF
Press release, August 20; Esther Lam,
DIGITIMES [Wednesday 20 August 2008]
…
Intel will demonstrate the world’s first 16GB 2-rank DIMM from Hynix, using the MetaRAM DDR3 chipset at IDF. Intel will also demonstrate a server with 160GB using Hynix DDR3 R-DIMMs and Meta SDRAM technology, Hynix said.
So memory chip makers also DO deals with companies like NLST – in order to build more complicated modules (that include more than just memory chips).
Here is a list of memory chip manufacturers:
http://www.interfacebus.com/memory.html
This article lists the dominant memory chip makers (not the same as memory module makers):
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10057284-64.html
October 3, 2008 4:00 AM PDT
Memory chipmakers face survival test
by Brooke Crothers
Hynix – in financial trouble due to extended drought in memory during last 2 years (low prices, low margins). However it is linked to S.Korean government and can get bailout.
Samsung
Qimonda AG (Infineon) – “ailing”
MU – “largest U.S. maker of memory”
question:
Since netlist has to buy RAM on open market, how can you be competitive compared to DRAM manufactureres such as Elpida and Micron ?
So short answer is that companies like NLST have to buy memory chips from those companies, but if those companies want to make memory modules they have to license from companies like NLST – or buy buffer chips (like they were planning to do from Inphi, and earlier MetaRAM).
From the chart they show, you can see that the companies which license their technology (i.e. their IP – intellectual property) are the ones with greatest gross margins.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/16968-gross-margin-kings-memory-chip-manufacturers
Gross Margin Kings – Memory Chip Manufacturers
by: Robert Zenilman September 15, 2006 | about: CY / SNDK / MU / SFUN / RMBS / IDTI / ISSI / MOSY / RMTR / SSTI / STEC / STAK
Rob Zenilman submits: Within a specific sector, gross margins can differ dramatically, due to the different nature of their businesses. Among the memory chip manufacturers tracked here, gross margins ranged from 24.8% (STEC) up to 85.7% (RMBS). The companies that have drastically higher gross margin are what I like to call “gross margin kings”.
What separates out the companies with the four highest gross margin rates is that they earn money by licensing out their technology. 88% of Rambus’ revenue is from licensing, 100% for MoSys (MOSY), 56% for Saifun Semiconductors (SFUN), 100% for Virage Logic (VIRL) and 25% for Staktek Holdings (STAK).
…
However, having high gross margins is no guarantee of profitability. Of the four companies here with gross margins over 70% (and that derive most of their revenue from licensing) – only Rambus has a positive P/E of 62.84.
Can anyone here provide any details about the kind of information that NLST CEO Hong will probably discuss in his “investor presentation”? Thanks.
Netlist to Present at the Needham Growth Stock Conference in New York City
IRVINE, Calif., Jan. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Netlist, Inc. (Nasdaq: NLST) today announced that CEO C.K. Hong is scheduled to make an investor presentation at the Needham 12th Annual Growth Stock Conference on Thursday, January 14, at 2:30 pm Eastern Time. The conference is being held January 12-14, at The New York Palace in New York City.
The presentation will be accessible by live webcast in the Investors section of the Netlist website at http://www.netlist.com. A replay of the webcast will be available on the Netlist website for 30 days.
Another twist that makes things even more interesting here.
According to the USPTO Assignment database, MetaRAM has licensed the use of the method in patent 7,472,220 to Netlist, and Netlist has licensed the use of the method in patent 7,289,386 to MetaRAM.
Memory module decoder
Interface circuit system and method for performing power management operations utilizing power management signals
It appears that the execution date on the conveyances was December 21, 2009, and the recording of the assignments took place on January 4, 2009.
The ‘386 patent appears to be at the heart of some of the litigation between Google and Netlist, and between Netlist and MetaRAM. Part of a settlement between Netlist and MetaRAM? I don’t know for certain. Might be interesting to listen in to the live webcast that netlistfan mentioned in the comment above this one.
This is seriously interesting. Thanks !!
USPTO assignment search page – entering patent number to search:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat
Reveals that:
7472220 – MetaRAM license to NLST ..
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=&reel=&frame=&pat=7472220&pub=&asnr=&asnri=&asne=&asnei=&asns=
7289386 – NLST license to MetaRAM ..
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=&reel=&frame=&pat=7289386&pub=&asnr=&asnri=&asne=&asnei=&asns=
So a cross licensing arrangment – and this fits in with recent withdrawal of cases by both parties in NLST vs. MetaRAM and MetaRAM vs. NLST (as reported above).
The USPTO assignment info for each patent shows:
Conveyance: LICENSE (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
Compare with the patents that were sold to GOOG (as reported above) – for example:
7580312 – Power saving system and method for use with a plurality of memory circuits (
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=&reel=&frame=&pat=7580312&pub=&asnr=&asnri=&asne=&asnei=&asns=
These have:
Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
That is, the “ownership” (ASSIGNORS INTEREST) is transferred to GOOG.
In an earlier post I had wondered HOW NLST allowed MetaRAM to sell it’s IP – since NLST was potentially due money (in case of eventual win in court against MetaRAM).
Now it seems something similar to that DID happen – i.e. either:
- NLST signalled to MetaRAM to keep certain IP in hand (while it could sell other stuff it was not interested in – like the IP on “stacked memory” which NLST has claimed has serious asymmetry issues – search above for “stacked”).
- MetaRAM recognized which of it’s IP would be valuable in eventually getting NLST off it’s back, and retained THOSE patents.
The date of assignment for patents sold to GOOG are 09/11/2009:
Assignor: METARAM, INC. Exec Dt: 09/11/2009
While the ones licensed to NLST are dated 12/21/2009:
Assignor: METARAM, INC. Exec Dt: 12/21/2009
So MetaRAM KNEW as early as 09/11/2009 that it would not need THOSE patents – and which ones NOT to sell to GOOG (!).
The other two alternatives are left unanswered:
- why NLST did not insist that all of MetaRAM’s IP be given (or sold) to NLST – maybe NLST wasn’t interested in all of it ?
- why GOOG didn’t overpay to buy ALL of MetaRAM’s IP – including the patents that MetaRAM retained, or did MetaRAM decline since it needed those to fend off NLST for an eventual settlement, so it’s bankruptcy proceedings could proceed unhindered.
- what happens to the patents MetaRAM has retained (not sold to GOOG) – like the cross-licensing patents. Can NLST claim interest in who gets the patents in bankruptcy proceedings since it is (now) a licensee ?
As well as this question:
- does MetaRAM hold other patents that it has NOT sold to GOOG ? Would be hard to believe GOOG would not want the most NLST-specific ones but were there MetaRAM patents that GOOG did not buy – which MetaRAM is still holding on to ? Why – since there is little value in retaining those patents – as a company, those assets will have to be liquidated during bankruptcy.
As conjectured above – the NLST/MetaRAM mutually agreed dismissal of cases – NLST vs. MetaRAM and MetaRAM vs. NLST bode well for the strategy the NLST lawyers were adopting. One of conciliation with a defeated enemy in order to positiong better for the fight against the larger one:
- since not much extractable from a bankrupt company, NLST can at least make sure info from discovery etc. in these cases is not available to help GOOG in the NLST/GOOG cases.
Now it seems NLST DID get something from that settlement as well – broader coverage thanks to help from MetaRAM patents.
searching the USPTO assignment search page – entering METARAM as “Assignor”, then clicking the “METARAM, INC” name that appears:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asnrd=METARAM,%20INC.
shows the patents that MetaRAM has assigned to others.
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asned=NETLIST,%20INC.
The patents that assigned to NLST. Only the 7472220 patent appears for Netlist.
MetaRAM patents being transferred to GOOG number around 50 + 7 (patents or filings).
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asned=GOOGLE%20INC.&page=15
quote:
So MetaRAM KNEW as early as 09/11/2009 that it would not need THOSE patents – and which ones NOT to sell to GOOG (!).
Another possibility is that MetaRAM sold off it’s IP without too much thought – but because they were being sued by NLST, and they were in turn retaliatory-suing NLST based on 7472220 patent, they HAD to retain that. So everything else went on sale, but they had to keep that in hand in order to retain some standing in court case against NLST (which was their counterweight to NLST’s suit against them).
When MetaRAM/NLST settled, this patent was lying around, so it became part of the eventual settlement – i.e. cross-licensing between the two.
So maybe this is the (simpler) interpretation.
Question is, why did MetaRAM license the NLST patent then ? Or is it standard procedure to cross-license this way – or is this standard “closure” to the case by making each party “whole” by giving them the license to patent which nullifies the case (so for instance the same type of suit cannot be filed again – either by NLST against MetaRAM or by MetaRAM against NLST) – and has nothing to do with whether MetaRAM intends to use the NLST patent (probably not).
Bill,
Thanks for making and sharing your latest discovery. Very interesting indeed.
And netlist,
Thanks for building on Bill’s discovery by sharing your related discoveries and by thinking through the implications and possibilities.
Great detective work, you two. The mystery slowly unfolds…
Thanks, netlist and netlistfan,
I’m very thankful for the comments and questions and information being shared here by everyone.
I’m still wondering how the licensing of technology to MetaRAM might affect the litigation between Netlist and Google, if at all.
from Briefing.com this evening:
“4:49PM NetList files for $30 mln mixed securities shelf offering”
NLST closing price today was $5.21. Now it’s $4.82 after-hours. Ouch!
My guess is that NLST will trade in a range between $4.50 and $6.50 for 3 to 6 months, and won’t rise steadily or significantly until the lawsuits are settled, the OEMs test and approve HyperCloud, the latter gets certified, and JEDEC decides the standardization question.
Over the next 1 to 2 years, I think NLST and HyperCloud will prosper nicely. But tonight’s share-dilution (on top of the many other obstacles to NLST that I just mentioned) will probably suppress the share price for several months.
Other opinions?
http://www.netlist.com/investors/SEC_filings.htm
The above link will take you to netlist.com, where you can download NLST’s S-3 filing dated today, 1-11-2010, in the format that you prefer. It confirms that NLST has filed with the SEC it’s plan to sell $30 million in mixed securities in a “shelf offering,” which may be sold over an unspecified duration.
For an explanation of the “dilution”, please read the following on the NLST yahoo board (poison-pill provisions possibility), since with 10M shares, a possible hostile takeover by GOOG would not be out of the question:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_N/threadview?m=te&bn=51443&tid=11805&mid=11887&tof=2&frt=2#11887
Re: OFFERING, SELL SELL SELL .. part1
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_N/threadview?m=te&bn=51443&tid=11805&mid=11888&tof=1&frt=2#11888
Re: OFFERING, SELL SELL SELL .. part1
netlist,
Your “poison pill” hypothesis seems very plausible to me too. Netlist is especially wary of Google right now, because of Netlist’s lawsuits with Google, but Netlist is also probably wary of being vulnerable to a “premature” buy-out or hostile take-over from HP, Dell, IBM, Cisco, or any number of bigger companies. And almost everyone is bigger and richer than Netlist.
Since Netlist’s new product, HyperCloud, has real potential to be a blockbuster that could take Netlist’s share price to fantastic heights (and since Netlist has worked hard and long to remake itself, and now hopes to finally achieve the potential that they never enjoyed since their IPO in 2006), I think that Hong and Netlist’s other big inside owners must really want Netlist to have a chance to succeed and grow on its own, and not have its independent life “taken away” prematurely in what is really its infancy. A premature buy-out or take-over would be emotionally painful to Netlist management and employees, I think.
In addition to the emotional aspect, there is the financial aspect: Hong et al obviously would prefer to sell their shares in a few years at $500, not now at $5!!!
So now seems like a perfect time to obtain the legal right to sell up to $30 million worth of securities, in the manner and timing of Netlist’s choosing. Why? First and most important, for self-defense against Google (and others), as you rightly point out. And second, because Netlist’s share price has been range-bound (and likely will continue to be) until the obstacles I mentioned a few comments above get resolved. This S-3 filing would cause a price drop at almost any time, so it’s best get it over now, when the price is likely to be trading sideways for another 3 to 6 months anyway. Then, when Netlist has removed the obstacles that are currently in its way, and the orders come in and the payments come in, Netlist will likely be clear for take off.
Lastly, I just want to highlight that Netlist’s S-3 filing is not an offer to sell shares, and it’s not an obligation to sell shares — it will be (once approved by the SEC) just an option to act that sits on the “shelf,” waiting for Netlist to use if and when Netlist needs or wants to use it.
Thanks again, netlist and netlistfan,
There does seem to be the potential for Netlist to grow into a remarkable company, but they also have to appear to be an attractive target at this point. If the filing can help them, then it sounds like a good move to take. I wasn’t sure what kind of reactions this post might have when I first posted it, but I didn’t expect the mystery to start unraveling the way that it has. Thanks again, for keeping this post up to date with the latest news.
Today’s call was very depressing. I have accumulated quite a bit and was hoping to hear about OEM
qualifications in today’s Needham talk. All I heard was 6 months to revenue and no concrete OEM
announcement nor any talk of lawsuit settlement.
Netlist and others – Can you help me understand why it takes so long for qualification ? Also are
the lawsuits preventing quick adoption of hypercloud ?
Seems to have become hype-o cloud from hypercloud !
joeq,
I share your discouraged feeling and your financial pain. I agree with you that the NLST Investor Presentation was very disappointing. So much so, that I sold all my shares of NLST, at a painful-but-bearable loss, so that I could “let go and move on.” I hope to make the loss back elsewhere.
Like many others, I jumped too soon and too much into NLST because of all the great descriptions of its new product, HyperCloud, in November. But after watching a lot of my money drop and drift for two long months (while other stocks are rising), the thought of having my money falling or flat for another 6 months (or more) prompted me to sell, and switch to other stocks.
I still think NLST and HyperCloud have great potential IF everything works out well. But will it? And when?
Here is a “top 10″ list of my concerns regarding NLST:
1) Is HyperCloud truly the huge technological advance that the “hype” has claimed it is?
2) Does HyperCloud work exactly as promised, or will tests by OEMs require adjustments and delays?
3) How long will it take for OEMs to finish testing HyperCloud, and will they approve it? (Netlist Investor Relations doesn’t know.)
4) How long will it take for HyperCloud to receive full certification? (IR doesn’t know.)
5) How long will it take for OEM’s to place big orders and for NLST to start mass production? (IR doesn’t know.)
6) How long will it take for NLST to start receiving big sales and big payments? (NLST “thinks” 6 months, but based on all of the unknowns, I think 6 months is just a guess, and it could take longer.)
7) How long will it take for the lawsuits between NLST and GOOG, and NLST and Inphi, to be resolved (and will NLST win, or benefit from, these lawsuits)? Nobody knows.
9) What are NLST’s plans for their recent $30 million S-3 “shelf” filing, and do these plans include protection against a possible hostile takeover (netlist’s “poison pill” idea) or premature takeover (my idea)? (IR doesn’t know.)
10) Will NLST be able to become a successful company on its own (after struggling for 3 years since its IPO), or will NLST get bought out and merge into a much larger corporation? No one knows.
I want to emphasize that these are my concerns and understandings regarding NLST. Anyone is free to call Netlist Investor Relations’ Ms. Jill Bertotti at (949)474-4300, or to email her at jill@allencaron.com, and ask her your own questions.
The are no doubt additional unknowns and concerns regarding NLST — but these 10 alone seem likely to make an investment in NLST take 6 months or longer to significantly pay off.
For example, if the economic recovery in the U.S. and the world is slower than expected, or suffers a serious setback, tech spending on products like HyperCloud will likely be lower and slower.
I still wish NLST (and NLST investors) all the best, and I will watch to see if it eventually takes off (in price and performance), but I won’t buy it again unless and until it proves itself to be growing quickly and steadily.
BILL, thanks for starting this very helpful thread, and for your great discoveries and comments.
netlist, thanks for your especially useful information, prompt replies and thorough comments, many links, and thinking through of implications.
And thanks to everyone who commented and contributed to this thread.
joeq, I hope my reply helps. Maybe others can also answer your questions. I wish you the best.
Best regards everyone! Maybe I’ll see you later. Hope you have a healthy, happy, and prosperous new year!
oops! On number 9 of the above list, I meant to type “premature buy-out” not “premature takeover”.
Thanks for the smile, Bill. :>)
Just 5 more (I promise) :>)
11) When will JEDEC decide whether or not to adopt NLST’s IP and HyperCloud as the industry standard — and how will NLST be affected either way?
12) How well will NLST compete against much bigger and richer competitors (like CSCO)?
13) Are tiny NLST’s production capacities too small to keep up with a potentially huge demand by giant companies like HP, DELL, and IBM?
14) Does HyperCloud truly have a competitive edge over other products, and if so, how long and how much will it be profitable for NLST?
15) How long will it take before technological innovations by other companies advance ahead of NLST’s HyperCloud?
OK, I’m done. Good luck all!
Thanks, joeq and netlistfan.
Great questions, and a lot to think about. The issues involving netlist, metaram, and Google here arethe type that affect many tech companies. Can the small startup survive to become a large one? How can innovation in technology, market pressures, standards bodies, and a need for that innovative technology influence potentially shape our futures?
I’m not sure in this particular instance, between these particular parties. I’m not sure that I’ve seen Google purchase patents from another company before in what might be characterized as a defensive maneuver, if that is what in fact took place. That’s why I wrote about it in the first place. The cross-licensing of patent processes between Netlist and MetaRAM was a surprise as well.
I don’t have any stocks from any of the companies involved, but I think there are some pretty large implications behind what happens between the companies involved for large scale data centers, and search providers like Google. I’ll be following along, and very thankful for all of the sharing of information within the comments on this thread.
I hope you all have a wonderful new year as well. Thanks, again.
Note GOOG does not have the patent that MetaRAM was suing NLST with.
So the MOST overlapping patent that MetaRAM could think of is now licensed by NLST.
Even if GOOG were to license NLST patents now, it would not undo years of infringement (and treble damages if wilful).
quote:
Today’s call was very depressing. I have accumulated quite a bit and was hoping to hear about OEM
qualifications in today’s Needham talk. All I heard was 6 months to revenue and no concrete OEM
announcement nor any talk of lawsuit settlement.
Netlist and others – Can you help me understand why it takes so long for qualification ? Also are
the lawsuits preventing quick adoption of hypercloud ?
Seems to have become hype-o cloud from hypercloud !
NLST yahoo board:
http://messages.yahoo.com/?action=q&board=nlst
Many people have said on that board that OEM qualification does take time – maybe others can shed light on whether 3-6 months is normal.
Here is an overview of Needham presentation:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_N/threadview?m=te&bn=51443&tid=12087&mid=12087&tof=1&frt=2#12087
netlist provided lots of good info in the last link to the NLST Yahoo Board that he posted just above. Scrolling far down on that Yahoo Board thread, the following opinion by “herbieray20…” that NLST might hit $2 or $3 and take a full year to take off seemed worth posting here.
netlist rightly replied that NLST’s share price might jump earlier than that, and by a lot, if, for example, the lawsuits settle sooner and favorably.
Lots of scenarios are possible, but most current opinions state that it will most likely take 6 to 12 months for NLST to take off in a sustained way.
Here’s the quote to consider:
“This [Netlist's HyperCloud] will take at least a year to bear fruit, with lots of ups and downs in the stock price.
As a retired engineer in the server area, I have lots of experience with product development cycles, evaluation of chips sets, etc. I would be very surprised if this product has tangible effects on revenues/profits for at least 4 quarters, and then who knows what the competition will have done..?
My prediction for the next year is consolidation between $2 and $3 at best.
Just my opinion.”
[by herbieray20... on NLST Yahoo Board, 1-16-10]
NLST has answered Inphi’s complaint in Inphi vs. NLST.
Among the usual boilerplate, one comment sticks out. NLST claims that Inphi cannot claim “injunctive relief”, because Inphi is subject to a “compulsory reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) license requirement pursuant to Inphi’s membership in JEDEC and activities therein in connection with these patents”.
Netlist,
Based on your statement,
Among the usual boilerplate, one comment sticks out. NLST claims that Inphi cannot claim “injunctive relief”, because Inphi is subject to a “compulsory reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) license requirement pursuant to Inphi’s membership in JEDEC and activities therein in connection with these patents”.
Does this mean that Netlist is infringing Inphi patents in its product and trying to use JEDEC as shield ? Clever move by netlist. Wonder if they infringe other JEDEC patents.
NLST sued Inphi (NLST vs. Inphi) and later Inphi retaliated with Inphi vs. NLST.
Inphi is lacking any serious IP in the area. Their retaliatory suit has variously been reported as “frivolous”.
I posted that to support that general impression that Inphi’s suit is a kneejerk suit crafted without thought.
Netlist today announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued to Netlist Patent No. 7,636,274 for its invention related to memory load isolation and memory rank multiplication, and Patent No. 7,619,912 for its invention related to memory rank multiplication.
Hi McDee,
Thanks for citing those. From what I understand, they were announced because they have something to do with Netlist’s HyperCloud memory modules.
I didn’t do a rundown of Netlist patents here, but I looked through a number of them. These weren’t patents that were just published, but they are fairly recent. The newest of the two was granted in December. The press release, from January 19th, tells us:
In GOOG vs. NLST (now consolidated with NLST vs. GOOG at request of both GOOG and NLST), GOOG sacks whole legal team of Fish and Richardson.
From filing dated Jan 21, 2010:
Please take notice that plaintiff GOOGLE INC., hereby substitutes Timothy T. Scott, Geoffrey M. Ezgar, and Leo Spooner III of the law firm of King & Spalding LLP as attorneys of record in the place and stead of David J. Miclean, Howard G. Pollack, Jason W. Wolff, Juanita
R. Brooks, Robert J. Kent, Jr. and Shelley K. Mack of the law firm of Fish & Richardson, located at 12390 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130 and 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500,
Redwood City, CA 94063.
What is interesting is that the new law firm King & Spalding is NOT KNOWN for patent or intellectual property litigation.
That is, they are not known for being “trial lawyers” or “intellectual property” lawyers, but are considered #2 in country for arbitration (yes, ARBITRATION) !
If you look at their practices:
http://www.kslaw.com/portal/server.pt?space=KSPublicRedirect&control=KSPublicRedirect&CommunityId=227&ui_pa_sort=group&ui_pa_display=
They surely DO have practice (like all large firms) in:
- Licensing
- Patents
- Trade Secrets & Non-Compete Litigation
- Mergers & Acquisitions
HOWEVER, they are not a small tight outfit that just deals with “intellectual property” or patent defence.
If you have all the money in the world (GOOG) to protect yourself in an IP-related lawsuit, you would get the best lawyers for that (if you were intending to contest on IP grounds).
However if you were thinking of getting the best deal – you would get the best company in arbitration.
In terms of rankings they are ranked VERY HIGH in arbitration, but are not even MENTIONED in rankings for patent or intellectual property litigation:
http://www.kslaw.com/portal/server.pt?space=KSPublicRedirect&control=KSPublicRedirect&PressReleaseId=3375
King & Spalding Lawyers Earn 26 Rankings As Leaders In Their Fields and 18 Practice Areas Recognized In Chambers Global 2009
04 Mar 2009
Historically not exactly famous for patent litigation either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_Spalding
Notable Mandates
* Counseled Sprint Corp. in its sale of Sprint Publishing & Advertising, the directory publishing business to RH Donnelly Corp. for $2.23 billion. The transaction was announced in 2002 and closed in 2003.
* Represented JDN Realty Corp. in its $1.02 billion sale to Developers Diversified Realty Corp. for a combination of cash and stock. The deal closed in 2003.
* Advised Credit Suisse First Boston as financial adviser to Graphic Packaging in its $3 billion merger with fellow forestry and paper company Riverwood Holding in 2003.
* Represented Caremark Rx in its $6 billion merger with AdvancePCS in 2004.
* Counseled Lockheed Martin in its $2.4 billion acquisition of Titan Corp., in a mixed cash and stock offer which closed in 2004.
* Advised SunTrust Bank in its $6.98 billion purchase of National Commerce Financial Corporation in 2004.
* Legal counsel to Novelis, a Canadian-based aluminum company in its purchase by Hindalco Industries Ltd., an Indian steel company for total consideration of $6 billion. The transaction closed in 2007.
Link for #2 ranking for arbitration:
http://www.kslaw.com/portal/server.pt?space=KSPublicRedirect&control=KSPublicRedirect&PressReleaseId=3491
King & Spalding Earns No. 2 Spot in 2009 Arbitration Scorecard
26 Jun 2009
NEW YORK, June 26, 2009—King & Spalding, a leading international law firm, earned the No. 2 spot in Focus Europe’s 2009 Arbitration Scorecard, a worldwide ranking of law firms by number and size of arbitrations. The rankings were published in the summer 2009 issue of Focus Europe, an annual supplement to The American Lawyer.
Focus Europe noted that King & Spalding is among “the first tier of arbitration law firms.” The firm appeared as arbitration counsel in a total of 25 arbitrations included in the 2009 Arbitration Scorecard.
King & Spalding was also included in Focus Europe’s list of Twelve Big Awards for its representation of three of the listed awards: Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic ($165 million), Sempra Energy International Co. v. Argentine Republic ($128 million) and Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. and Ponderosa Assets, LP v. Argentine Republic ($106 million).
The 2009 Arbitration Scorecard covers international arbitrations (not limited to Europe) that were active in the years 2007 and 2008. It is based on nearly 250 cases—all either commercial disputes with stakes of at least $500 million or treaty disputes with stakes of at least $100 million.
Among the survey’s list of disputes, King & Spalding served as claimant’s counsel in one investment treaty arbitration and three contract arbitrations in which at least $1 billion was in controversy.
King & Spalding is ranked among the leading international arbitration practices in the world. Chambers USA 2009 says, “This powerhouse continues to impress with its international arbitration practice, attracting praise for its depth of knowledge and client service,” an accolade that echoes from the publication’s 2008 edition, which described the firm as “currently one of the arbitration arena’s biggest success stories.” King & Spalding was nominated for a Chambers USA Award for Excellence 2009 in international arbitration and was a finalist in 2008. It also features among the world’s leading international arbitration practices in Chambers Global 2009. And the 2009 edition of The Legal 500: US describes King & Spalding’s international arbitration team as “”simply terrific.”
About King & Spalding
King & Spalding is an international law firm with more than 880 lawyers in Abu Dhabi, Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Dubai, Frankfurt, Houston, London, New York, Riyadh (affiliated office), San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. The firm represents half of the Fortune 100 and in Corporate Counsel surveys consistently has been among the top firms representing Fortune 250 companies. For additional information, visit http://www.kslaw.com/.
From an interview of GOOG’s NEW new lead lawyer (Timothy Scott):
http://apps.kslaw.com/Library/publication/Zimmer%20Scott%20Met%20Corp%20Counsel%20Jan%202010.%20pdf.pdf
Top Litigators Manage Firm’s California Of?ces
Page 32 The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel January 2010
The Editor interviews Timothy T. Scott
and Donald F. “Fritz” Zimmer, Jr.,
King & Spalding LLP.
…
Editor: To what extent has the cost of e-discovery contributed to the increase in litigation expense?
Scott: You can’t even litigate a simple thing without the discovery cost dwarf- ing everything else in the case. If a com- plaint in a securities class action case survives a motion to dismiss, the cost of collecting and reviewing all the elec- tronically stored data creates an impetus to settle the case before even getting to the merits in order to avoid the cost of e- discovery.
Zimmer: The invention of email has done more to bene?t plaintiffs’ counsel than any other development of the last 20 years. I have colleagues on the plain- tiffs’ side of the bar who tell me they thank their lucky stars that email was invented.
…
Not only has GOOG suffered from discovery (on hardware side) – by having to reveal it’s GOOG server to NLST (and thus proving use of “Mode C” in GOOG servers).
It will now have to contend with NLST riffling through GOOG e-mails as well – as the trail is examined of who said what at GOOG and when they knew it.
The trial will examine the role of GOOG employees (mentioned in earlier court dockets and posted some days back – see above):
Rick Roy – “involved in the development of the accused 4-rank FBDIMMs and who participated in meetings with Netlist concerning it’s patented technology”
Andrew Dorsey – same as above
Rob Sprinkle – same as above
And god knows what else THAT “discovery” of GOOG internal e-mails will reveal.
The situation is strongly in favor of GOOG settling the case.
- for reasons mentioned above i.e. legal issues and “discovery” problems for GOOG (a loss will also not help their “do no evil” image – and image is essential for GOOG i.e. consumer trust since that is part of the GOOG business model.
- for reasons that alternatives to NLST are at a standstill.
Alternatives to NLST – there are none so far.
MetaRAM is out of business (NLST now licensee of patent MetaRAM hoped to use against NLST).
Inphi which owns no IP in this area and was just hoping to sell a buffer chip is embroiled in legal dispute with NLST.
Meanwhile memory module makers like Micron are waiting for JEDEC to arrive at a standard so they can start moving forward. Inphi is also awaiting that, so memory module makers will use it’s buffer chip (now that MetaRAM – who was earlier partnered with many memory module makers – is gone).
But while NLST/GOOG dispute (being the most prominent) is not resolved, and the licensing status of the infringing of IP in JEDEC proposed standard (like JEDEC FBDIMM “Mode C” proposed standard) are not clear, JEDEC cannot move forward with standardizing (since that will benefit NLST as IT’S IP is made into standard so many people can start doing that – meaning more infringers and people to collect damages from by NLST).
In any case JEDEC procedure is to see that they not infringe proprietary stuff – and if it does to negotiate licenses itself (or by it’s members) to allow the standard to move forward. After all the creation of “the standard” is to encourage standardization – which will lead to lower overall costs to it’s members. JEDEC cannot blindly adopt something as standard that still has IP and licensing issues unresolved.
For this reason – we will see a DROUGHT of memory in this space. NLST being the only unencumbered player – both as creator of the memory, and the manufacturer will be in an unenviable position – as there is no other player who can deliver what NLST can deliver.
Plus it is not like NLST HyperCloud is a totally new form factor – it is plug and play and requires no modification to BIOS. This means it is a “no brainer” for an OEM server manufacturer to incorporate NLST HyperCloud since nothing else is available and there is no “cost” to doing this (i.e. “how can we lose”).
In addition, all this is timed to coincide with the much reported server upgrade cycle (since there is a lot of pent up demand as there were fewer upgrades/purchases in last 2 years due to economic uncertainty and the upgrade cycle is now beginning – memory price improvement etc.).
And you have OEMs in a crunch – they cannot avoid using NLST.
Meanwhile memory module makers will be getting impatient. As they will miss the upgrade cycle (at least in this area of data center upgrade/cloud computing expansion). They will be under pressure to negotiate some licensing deals with NLST.
Note that while many memory module makers have done deals with MetaRAM in the past, they have NOT been prosecuted by NLST (partly to limit it’s legal expenses perhaps – and partly because these people are all potential customers).
GOOG also will perhaps also be under the most pressure – with ever expanding hardware needs (GOOG being a big user of memory-loaded systems – for which the NLST HyperCloud solution is most appropriate) GOOG will be in a crunch as well, if it cannot upgrade it’s systems for lack of non-infringing solutions.
In addition, note that GOOG – for the possibility of wilful infringement (since GOOG had discussed with NLST – then went ahead and violated NLST IP), could face treble damages in court (if case goes through).
So pressure is on GOOG – to settle. But because memory/server expansion is such a big part of it’s business, GOOG loses every month that it delays – every month that standard/legal memory modules are NOT available to sate the growth nees of GOOG server expansion.
So the time clock is clicking for most of these players, and that makes the GOOG vs. NLST/NLST vs. GOOG cases unlike a traditional IP infringement suit – since there are time issues as well which are NOT in favour of GOOG.
Hi Netlist,
Thanks for the updates and observations on the legal representation in the Google vs. Netlist litigation. There do seem to be some factors involved that point more towards a settlement than prolonged litigation. I guess we wait and see.
Netlist,
Brilliant analysis. Maybe there will be some money after all. Any thoughts on Google settlement in terms of
dollars ? How much can we expect ? Do you think Inphy will also settle and any guess on how many dollars
can we expect out of them ?
I do not know what the difference is between GOOG using 4-rank (for which “Mode C” is a smoking gun) and the other memory module makers who are making 4-rank memory. Whether they are violating NLST IP as well.
It is possible that they are – except that NLST has chosen to not fight them right now – and has gone against GOOG first (low legal resources and also that the memory module makers could be allies later).
quote:
Maybe there will be some money after all. Any thoughts on Google settlement in terms of dollars ? How much can we expect ? Do you think Inphy will also settle and any guess on how many dollars
Trying to pin down the knowns – and keeping in mind the constraints i.e. like what we know of GOOG psychology, their business model and how they hope to behave to retain customer trust etc. ..
My guess is as part of settlement, GOOG will want no attribution of guilt for starters (to avoid pollution of “do no evil” motto). To achieve that they will be willing to concede in other areas i.e. monetarily.
GOOG can pay and walk away. But situation is not that simple – there is a reason it was infringing NLST IP – this is exactly what GOOG needs for it’s servers.
NLST HyperCloud is designed precisely for GOOG type situations (i.e. increases speed for memory-loaded servers – apart from the cost and power advantages).
So GOOG has to make sure that it can negotiate a path for itself as well (so GOOG servers are not shut down). So maybe the carrot will be a contract for use, or licensing terms to protect existing GOOG usage.
Because of the constraints above, there will have to be a transition from acrimonious to congenial. GOOG knows it can’t just walk away from NLST even after throwing money at it – it will have to buy memory or license from NLST in the future even if they were not personally in litigation.
Therefore I suspect a change in attitude at GOOG – the change in law firm already changes the faces that NLST lawyers meet – thereby allowing discussion in a different direction (as I posted above, the new GOOG law firm is #2 in country for ARBITRATION, and not particularly famous for IP litigation).
The effect of that will be multiplicative for NLST – concession from GOOG will be validating for NLST. And GOOG may understand that it has that value just by acknowledging validity of NLST IP – is a signal to other players to fall in line (if GOOG the gorilla is acknowleding NLST IP validity).
I would not expect GOOG to take a share in the company – since insiders maybe careful at this stage. Plus they may need to remain neutral in order to be a trusted supplier to whole range of consumers (which include many cloud computing competitors of GOOG).
Regarding Inphi – maybe they will settle for a small payment. They probably haven’t sold that many buffer chips (which would only have been used if JEDEC finaled the standard). So maybe there won’t be any great damages.
Don’t see any real synergies between Inphi/NLST, so maybe a simple cash payment or a slap on the wrist.
Inphi holds no IP in this area, yet was trying to step into MetaRAM’s shoes after that company went bankrupt. MetaRAM was the darling of Intel and other memory module makers – who were using their buffer chips. Now Inphi was hoping to do the same (except without any IP) – mainly banking on JEDEC/module-makers to deal with the IP issues. However NLST didn’t go after those, but went directly for Inphi for IP infringement.
Argument for early GOOG/NLST settlement:
GOOG also will understand certain inherent advantages with an early settlement.
However superficially one would not expect the settlement to occur much before the 3-6 months for OEM qualification (Needham conference audio) since GOOG knows NLST will not be manufacturing in volume until then – so no hurry.
On the other hand, there maybe a whole process for internal qualification at GOOG which does a lot of custom solutions within GOOG – and they may want to “join the program” earlier so they can also give feedback to NLST (along with the other OEMs like HP, DELL).
This type of thinking would suggest a much earlier settlement, where early resolution is beneficial to GOOG, rather than delaying settlement (achieves nothing – have to still pay, and are in worse negotiating position, and are behind in OEM qualification roadmap).
In any case, GOOG founders may be of the opinion that to “keep it simple” – i.e. if it IS decided that they have to settle eventually, then to settle EARLY (and remove the distraction), and instead use the time to forge new relationship with NLST and to get in early with qualification of the new memory.
If this reading is correct, we may see a settlement far earlier than the 3-6 OEM qualification period.
Some comments on eventual JEDEC/NLST negotiations:
JEDEC is waiting for legal clarification, since it’s proposed standard falls awry of NLST IP. Since JEDEC standard is meant to make things easier for manufacturers, they would require favorable licensing terms from NLST before they could finalize the standard (and advocate it to manufacturers).
Since GOOG is the bigger player (and the decision is influential for others), I doubt NLST would bother dealing with a JEDEC deal before the GOOG deal.
After GOOG/NLST resolution, we may see JEDEC negotiating for reasonable terms of licensing with NLST.
Since NLST memory is plug and play and requires no BIOS updates, there is LESS need by OEMs for JEDEC standardization for this. In fact GOOG and others will not need JEDEC approval to start using NLST memory. This would have been different if it required changes to BIOS, motherboard – in that case there would be a need to have some standardization about how those changes should be made.
But as a consumer of memory for memory-loaded servers (where NLST HyperCloud works best), GOOG would WANT NLST IP to be licensed by JEDEC/module-makers so there are many manufacturers and prices go down on this technology. Of course, this would be the (JEDEC/RMBS-like) “royalty-based” model that CEO Hong mentioned in the Needham conference audio:
quote:
we have strong IP which create competitive barriers as well as provide future avenues for a royalty based business model
Since all these matters ARE interrelated – for instance GOOG settlement with NLST suddenly puts NLST in a strong spot – knowing this, GOOG may try to combine the GOOG settlement with JEDEC-licensing negotiations. While radical, this would be the sort of thing GOOG could do. Gives it some street cred, plus it is beneficial to GOOG in long run which is an avid consumer of memory for servers.
Allied NLST IP like “embedded passives”:
GOOG/NLST settlement raises other questions – what will become of the 4-rank stuff that memory module makers have been making for some time. Is that all a violation of NLST IP as well ? Were a lot of those 4-rank modules sold before ? Settlement would involve forgiving or getting compensation for all the other NLST IP that has been used by others.
However, so far NLST has been careful to avoid litigating too many cases – the seem to have gone after MetaRAM, GOOG and Inphi – i.e. the core players making the memory, or influential in what happens.
If JEDEC were to license NLST IP to JEDEC/memory-module-makers, they would probably need to license more than just the core IP, since to do it as well as NLST they may require the allied IP like “embedded passives” (to free up space on memory modules).
Summary:
So in summary, given previous post comments about time-sensitive nature for GOOG, which has ever expading server/memory-use growth, we may see a settlement far earlier than the “one day before jury trial” scenario.
The trend by infringers to drag out cases to settle a day before jury trial (to deplete accuser’s resources) is thus not applicable here.
And the time-sensitive nature includes not just wanting to use the memory, but also to join early so it can participate in qualification and feedback for NLST HyperCloud i.e. be part of the process early on if they ARE going to be using that memory anyway.
And then possibly also to mobilize JEDEC/NLST licensing so future multiple sources of such memory are available for GOOG.
Regarding Inphi, I don’t think there will be any of the “complicated relationship” issues (as between NLST/GOOG) since NLST probably doesn’t expect to be manufacturing anything through Inphi.
Inphi is not just a buffer chip manufacturer – so the case won’t harm them too much.
However the actual damages retreivable from Inphi may not be huge since they haven’t really sold this buffer chip that much (i.e. still only at the announcement level). Although they WERE prepping to replace MetaRAM as buffer chip of choice for memory module makers (like Micron etc.).
Which I think is why Google started the litigation against Netlist with their declaratory relief action.
They do seem like ideal clients for Netlist, with Hypercloud memory. Even though they are adversaries in court at this point in time, there is the potential for them to do business together in the future.
Thanks for the detailed analysis, netlist.
I do still find myself puzzled by Google’s purchase of MetaRAM’s patents, and what they might do with them in the future.
quote:
I do still find myself puzzled by Google’s purchase of MetaRAM’s patents, and what they might do with them in the future.
As an NLST shareholder, I would be happy to see GOOG transfer that IP to NLST. Although much of it may not be valuable (like IP on stacked memory which NLST has criticized for asymmetrical data lines etc.).
A related question is what GOOG intends to do with the internal hardware division – or at least the sub-section that was involved with development of the “internal” (don’t know who actually manufactured that for GOOG) infringing memory modules that GOOG is using.
If GOOG intends to keep that division they may need some IP like MetaRAMs for the future (at least to mount “retaliatory lawsuits”).
Hi netlist,
I suspect that Google wants to maintain their own independent ability to develop and manufacture hardware for their own internal uses. It is possible that’s the reason why the acquisition of the patents, but it was still a surprise to see. I’m not sure that they would transfer the MetaRAM IP over to Netlist, but I’ll try to keep my eyes open in case it happens.
Yes, makes sense. Although GOOG’s efforts for hardware are hard to gauge. We don’t even know how GOOG made those memory modules, and in what number, or if MetaRAM was involved with that (can’t be if MetaRAM says only made $37,000 worth and destroyed them at that).
http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Infrastructure/How-Google-Works-1/
How Google Works
By David F. Carr
2006-07-06
quote:
Google runs on hundreds of thousands of servers—by one estimate, in excess of 450,000—racked up in thousands of clusters in dozens of data centers around the world.
And this is from 2006. But as the other paper you posted above:
DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study (pdf)
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf
suggests they may have variety of hardware perhaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_platform
Current hardware
Servers are commodity-class x86 PCs running customized versions of Linux. The goal is to purchase CPU generations that offer the best performance per dollar, not absolute performance.[7] Estimates of the power required for over 450,000 servers range upwards of 20 megawatts, which cost on the order of US$2 million per month in electricity charges. The combined processing power of these servers might reach from 20 to 100 petaflops.
Here’s an article on a GOOG server:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html
April 1, 2009 2:26 PM PDT
Google uncloaks once-secret server
by Stephen Shankland
This article suggests GOOG builds a battery into it’s server – and may thus avoid separate UPS costs (i.e. can tolerate interruption before a generator is started).
The idea of using a battery is what many may have thought of – except GOOG has done it (because there is a critical mass of such people there – as soon as someone proposed it, there would be many who would immediately warm up to the idea – as opposed to a more conventional company).
As the article states – the loss of efficiency in conversion is important – as it directly impacts the heating that has to be managed with air conditioning etc. then.
They have also simplified the have motherboard (or possibly the power supply as the comments suggest) to do the 12V to 5V conversion (also required by motherboards from power supplies usually) – and this simplifies the use of the single voltage i.e. 12V battery.
quote:
The Google server was 3.5 inches thick–2U, or 2 rack units, in data center parlance. It had two processors, two hard drives, and eight memory slots mounted on a motherboard built by Gigabyte. Google uses x86 processors from both AMD and Intel, Jai said, and Google uses the battery design on its network equipment, too.
The comments suggest the motherboard is:
http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Networking/Products_Spec.aspx?ProductID=1075&ProductName=GA-9IVDT
Which on the face of it would only support up to 12GB of DDR2 400MHz memory.
One thing to note though – they DO have all the memory slots in use – though that would make sense from an economic standpoint i.e. get least dense memory module (cheapest) and populate all the slots.
GOOG infrastructure is designed for fault tolerance and motherboard failure – it is possibly they are also designed for server variation. If so, there is no real indication that new servers being installed are not using more memory than this server that was revealed.
After all the server GOOG showed in discovery for GOOG vs. NLST WAS infringing NLST IP (using “Mode C” and by implication 4-rank memory). It could be since GOOG had chosen to not deny that they were using “Mode C”, they thus chose to reveal a server demonstrating that as well – to simplify the process of eventual settlement and arbitration.
One reason GOOG could use the 4-rank memory despite not having systems that are heavily memory loaded (if 8-12GB still runs at top speed) could be reduced power consumption and ability to use cheaper memory chips. However would the manufacturing of such custom memory not be expensive as well (compared to a mass producer of such memory ?).
The article is dated April 1, 2009 – the author confirms that it was not an April Fool’s article.
Hi netlist,
Informative articles, especially the CNET one from April 1st.
There is an Exaflop patent (Exaflop shares the same address as Google on its patent submissions), Data center uninterruptible power distribution architecture, which includes the use of a 12 Volt lead acid battery in the event of power failure.
The patent looks like it might describe an earlier generation of Google’s use of a 12 volt battery for each server. A number of the many granted patents and patent applications assigned to Exaflop mention the use of a 12 volt battery.
Google also has a few granted and pending patent filings on motherboard cooling systems, a modular data center, and other data center approaches (including a water-based data center).
But I haven’t seen any published patent filings from them (other than the MetaRAM assigned ones) that focus upon memory.
NLST officially recognizes settlement with MetaRAM.
I wonder why the delay – is it because they have to wait for the final approval by court to appear ?
The other alternative – that NLST is savvy about holding back on news and posting it (like the previous 2 patents) at a time when stock is being manipulated down by market markers etc. If so, that would be interesting – and the opposite of what some companies wind up doing – i.e. screwing shareholders. With insiders owning 50% plus of NLST, that is perhaps one of the advantages – that management is better aligned with shareholder interest.
Stock price movements may not harm stocks in the long run, but they scare out many shareholders – leading to shareholder churn and (at least on stock bulletin boards) an absence of long time holders. So in that sense at least it helps if a company’s stock price does not move up/down that much (or manipulated down by market makers during a lull period).
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Netlist-Announces-Settlement-prnews-1484777084.html?x=0&.v=1
Netlist Announces Settlement of Patent Infringement Lawsuits With MetaRAM
Press Release Source: Netlist, Inc. On Thursday January 28, 2010, 1:25 pm EST
Hi Netlist,
It’s quite possible that they waited because they wanted to get legal filings out of the way, and a final settlement order from the two Courts involved. Making an announcement in a timely fashion after legal requirements were fulfilled would make it less likely to be perceived that they were announcing news in an effort to manipulate stock prices.
GOOG’s attorneys King & Spalding add some IP litigation attorneys to the team:
01/27/2010 90 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Mark H. Francis ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 44611004730.) filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2010) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 91 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Daniel Miller ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 44611004730.) filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2010) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 92 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Scott T. Weingaertner ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 44611004730.) filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2010) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 93 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Susan Kim ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 44611004730.) filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2010) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
01/27/2010 94 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Allison Altersohn ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 44611004730.) filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2010) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
It seems Scott Weingaertner is the significant attorney with expertise in “employee trade secret misappropriation”:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/King-Spaldings-Growth-Continues-in-New-York-760126.htm
SOURCE: King & Spalding
Aug 13, 2007 12:02 ET
King & Spalding’s Growth Continues in New York
Weingaertner focuses on intellectual property litigation and counseling with particular experience handling disputes regarding patent infringement, licenses and employee trade secret misappropriation, as well as patent interferences and ex parte procedures before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He is well versed in the technology areas of semiconductors and other electronics, computer software, medical and other mechanical devices, and financial services. He earned S.B. and S.M. degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania.
GOOG attorneys King & Spalding probably needed some IP attorneys – that is understandable.
The original reading still stands – that if King & Spalding is unranked for IP litigation, but #2 for arbitration – it seems likely that it was the #2 part which brought them to attention of GOOG.
This because Fish & Richardson (which they dumped) is already a respected law firm for IP litigation.
In any case, GOOG may not have liked the direction in which things were going – or the previous prosecution pattern of previous attorneys, possibly moving to a new tack (with new faces).
This article gives the general sense of the situation – Fish & Richardson was ideal for IP litigation, while King & Spalding for “general matters”.
Fish & Richardson (GOOG’s previous attorneys) is consistently rated among top 2 in overall as well as “patent prosecution”. While King & Spalding is #13 in “overall category”, and not even listed in top 30 for “patent prosecution”:
http://www.law.com/jsp/iplawandbusiness/PubArticleIPLB.jsp?id=1202437741766
or
http://www.slwip.com/about/whats_new/documents/2010Top10PatentProsecution.pdf
The Guardians
Which law firms do the country’s biggest corporations turn to when they need help obtaining, asserting, and defending their valuable intellectual property?
By Erik Sherman
IP Law & Business
December 01, 2009
…
The Big List
On the surface, there is a lot of consistency in how widely the top companies spread their work. Consider that the 36 firms included in the overall ranking that, along with our patent prosecution and IP litigation rankings, appears here were mentioned by companies at least five times for doing either prosecution or litigation work. But only five firms—Baker Botts, Fish & Richardson, Foley & Lardner, K&L Gates, and Greenberg Traurig—got enough mentions to also qualify for spots on our prosecution and litigation lists.
…
With two exceptions, no firm got more than three mentions from companies in a single industry. The exceptions: Baker Botts and Fish & Richardson (a finalist in this year’s IP Litigation Department of the Year contest; see “Perfecting the Art of War.” ). Both were named by multiple high-tech and/or telecommunications companies.
…
Fish did litigation and prosecution work for Apple Inc., H-P, and Intel Corporation, and litigation for Microsoft Corporation.
By contrast, the top firm with the most diverse docket was King & Spalding, whose seven mentions came from seven different clients, each of them in a different industry. For example, the firm did litigation work for The Coca-Cola Company (beverage), Chevron Corporation (energy), and International Business Machines Corporation (technology), and prosecution for General Electric Company (diversified financials), The Procter & Gamble Company (household and personal products), Citigroup Inc. (financial services), and Costco Wholesale Corporation (retail).
…
With eight and six mentions, respectively, two of the top litigation firms—Fish & Richardson and IP Litigation Department of the Year winner Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges (see “What Rhymes with Win?” ) had four clients between the tech and telecom sectors. Compare that to Wilmer and King & Spalding, with four mentions spread across four different industries. When it comes to litigation, high-tech companies and telecoms stand out, with top industry players using 15 out of the 18 firms to rack up at least four mentions. Given that, between them, these companies account for only 12 percent of the 100 biggest companies, the fact that they hired so many top litigation firms is certainly noteworthy. Is it any wonder that technology companies—frequent targets of so-called patent troll infringement claims—have been a driving force in the push to reform the nation’s patent system?
…
The Prosecution List
While it may not be as lucrative as litigation, patent prosecution work can be plentiful. Consider that in 2008, Fortune 100 corporations collectively received well over 21,000 patents, according to figures from the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the Patent and Trademark Office.
So who’s doing the bulk of that work? Thirty firms earned at least four mentions. At the top of the list, there is little overlap with the top litigation shops. Only three firms—Baker Botts, Fish & Richardson, and K&L Gates—climbed into the top four on both lists.
http://www.law.com/jsp/iplawandbusiness/PubArticleIPLB.jsp?id=1202437199242
The IP Litigation Department of the Year
IP Law & Business
December 01, 2009
Winner: Quinn Emanuel What Rhymes with Win?
Finalist: Fish & Richardson Perfecting the Art of War
Finalist: Weil, Gotshal & Manges Tried and True
Finalist: Winston & Strawn The Net Effect
http://www.fr.com/news/2010/january/americanlawyer.pdf
The Fish docket is mostly defense cases, but
the firm can flex its enforcement muscles. Case
in point: Fish helped Callaway Golf Company
win an injunction blocking the sale of Acushnet
Company’s Titleist Pro V1, which generated
$1.9 billion in sales in 2008. While that win
was sent back for a retrial due to a technical is-
sue, Callaway GC Michael rider says he has no
qualms about hiring Fish to handle all his pat-
ent litigation: “They know the patent law abso-
lutely cold, and know how to try patent cases.”
http://www.fr.com/news/2010/january/FishIPLaw360.pdf
Law360, New York (January 01, 2010)
Fish & Richardson PC
Fish & Richardson earned top spot in Law360’s IP firm rankings for its success in
reversing over $700 million in damages awards against Microsoft Corp. and in forging
new law concerning the fraud standard in trademark disputes.
http://www.fr.com/news/articles.cfm?topicid=13
Recent Wins
Anyone know where the Google Caffeine project page is now ?
Originally announced at:
http://www2.sandbox.google.com/
Or has it been integrated already (i.e. working in some random data center as originally anticipated).
Hi Netlist,
The search at that address was retired a few months ago, and Matt Cutts announced on his blog in early November to Expect Caffeine after the holidays. In that post, Matt mentioned that they would be showing Caffeine results at one data center so that they could continue to test it.
From what I have heard, Caffeine results were being shown for roughly half the visitors to the data center at IP address 209.85.225.103. It’s quite poassible that Google has rolled out Caffeine results to more data centers at this point, but we can’t be sure for certain.
In re: the above article that this thread is under – no one thinks it’s too much of a coincidence that GOOG announces this Caffine Project exactly one week after NLST announces their HyperCloud? NLST comes out with something seemingly revolutionary in memory and cloud computing, and a week later GOOG announces that they’re upgrading their infrastructure code and doing an overhaul of their browser to make it faster? Something that would require a memory upgrade?
And, as of this writing, the NASDAQ is up big, and NLST is down on very low volume. They driving it down with 100 share trades, and then buy 10 & 15K share blocks once they get it down.
NLST is being manipulated like there’s no tomorrow.
quote:
no one thinks it’s too much of a coincidence that GOOG announces this Caffine Project exactly one week after NLST announces their HyperCloud? NLST comes out with something seemingly revolutionary in memory and cloud computing, and a week later GOOG announces that they’re upgrading their infrastructure code and doing an overhaul of their browser to make it faster? Something that would require a memory upgrade?
Although having more memory in servers would allow GOOG to do things on a different scale, the suggestion in media or GOOG info seems to suggests an improvement in the algorithms and stuff like that. Any improvement in the hardware is not explicitly mentioned it seems.
GOOG was using the infringing memory prior to GOOG announcement. If anything Caffeine may have been based on that memory. Thus it would have little to do with NLST’s announcement schedule.
Recall that GOOG had gone to court to prevent NLST seeking to shut down GOOG servers – that case is GOOG vs. NLST.
During discovery for GOOG vs. NLST, GOOG was forced to show a GOOG server to NLST which had “Mode C” (smoking gun for “4-rank”). That led to NLST filing case NLST vs. GOOG.
As reported above, both GOOG and NLST asked court to consolidate the two cases because they are dealing with same memory.
Now it seems (Feb 3, 2010) Judge Armstrong has DENIED the consolidation. She is saying the GOOG vs. NLST case is well on it’s way (with discovery on track), so why delay that.
And to let the cases go ahead separately.
What does this mean.
It means the GOOG vs. NLST (which is at an advanced stage) will not be delayed.
Note that both parties were keen to consolidate the cases.
Here is what she says:
quote:
Based on that
commonality, the parties request that the Court: (1) consolidate the cases for trial under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a); (2) vacate the pretrial schedule and trial date in the First
Case in order to coordinate both cases for trial; and (3) schedule a date for a Case Management
Conference to set a new pretrial schedule applicable to both cases.
The Court is not convinced that the parties’ requests to consolidate and vacate the
pretrial schedule and trial date in the First Action are either necessary or appropriate. The First
Case based on Netlist’s decision to file a
new action over a year after the First Case was filed, particularly given that the new action
purportedly involves the same memory modules at issue in the First Case.
The Court also has serious concerns regarding the potential for the instant litigation to
expand exponentially, thereby increasing the cost to the parties and consuming an inordinate
amount of judicial resources. Although a settlement conference has been scheduled in the First
Case for August 3, 2010, the Court believes that it is in the parties’ mutual interest to engage in
a settlement conference or mediation, sooner rather than later—before the parties have
expended what likely will be a considerable amount of time and resources litigating these two
cases.
I’m pretty confident NLST is going to make another run again soon. I’m not some delusional buy and hold long who tells himself whatever he needs to hear while he keeps losing money.
I bought the stock @ 2.46 on that 1st Friday during the run up. I could have bought much cheaper, but it wasn’t until I did the DD that I realized the implications of what they had come up with. I sold the following Monday a little under 6, and then bought back in @ the close on Tuesday @ 4.03. Sold it at the end of the week @ 6.76. Played it a few more times on momentum and spikes here and there. But when they got it down to 3.34 the other day, I had to buy back in. And I bought back in deep. Got me 30K shares @ 3.43/3.42/.
Watching it trade the last few days, it’s really obvious that the crooks are walking it down on super low volume.
In the meantime, I really wish NLST would offer a little forward guidance.
I love this page you guys are well informed and very knowledgeable…
Can you tell me where you review the court docs for these case’s?
Thank you much.
Never mind. I found it…
Cheers!
quote:
Can you tell me where you review the court docs for these case’s?
For completeness here is the link:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_N/threadview?m=te&bn=51443&tid=11572&mid=13025&tof=1&frt=2#13025
Re: update on the various court cases
…
By the way, anyone wanting to look for court cases can do so at:
http://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov/
You need to register, but only need to pay after dues reach a certain amount (can use credit card to pay).
Click on “Enter U.S. Party/Case Index”.
Click on “All Court Types”
search for netlist:
Party Name: netlist
The cases will be listed (though with cryptic ids) – here is a guide:
NLST vs. Inphi:
4 NETLIST INC. cacdce 2:2009cv06900 09/22/2009 830
GOOG vs. NLST:
10 NETLIST, INC. candce 4:2008cv04144 08/29/2008 830
NLST vs. GOOG:
13 NETLIST, INC. candce 4:2009cv05718 12/04/2009 830
Inphi vs. NLST:
14 NETLIST, INC. cacdce 2:2009cv08749 11/30/2009 830
Clicking on the ID will show a page – you can view in HTML (webpage) or as pdf. View in HTML for now.
Click on “Docket Report”.
This will show what’s going on – and will have links for the individual dockets (judge’s ruling, filings by NLST/GOOG etc.).
Another patent application assigned to Google was published at the end of January:
Methods and Apparatus of Stacking DRAMS
From the patent filing:
Netlist’s ‘386 patent looks like it was filed on July 1, 2005, which was a couple of months earlier than the provisional patent application.
Not sure if any of this has any impact or significance for any pending litigation, and there is the possibility that there might be additional unpublished patent filings as well, but thought it was worth mentioning.
Another patent application assigned to Google was published at the end of January:
Methods and Apparatus of Stacking DRAMS
Thanks.
Netlist’s ‘386 patent looks like it was filed on July 1, 2005, which was a couple of months earlier than the provisional patent application.
NLST claims their IP dates back to March 2004 (from court filings).
Yes, this seems to be a MetaRAM patent that may have been in process (continuation of earlier patent).
It says it is a continuation of this patent:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7599205.pdf
Which itself is a continuation of:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7379316.pdf
This is a long-standing patent thread at MetaRAM – for “stacking DRAMs”.
Since GOOG is now owner of original thread, and all derivative patents, we see GOOG as direct owner. Note that the lawyer is Fish & Richardson (GOOG’s lawyer). Don’t know if Suresh Rajan is now a GOOG employee – but would make sense if MetaRAM main inventors are brought into GOOG hardware division.
This is related to the “stacking DRAMs” stuff that MetaRAM was doing and which as I pointed out earlier NLST was critical of for it’s asymmetrical lines to memory chips (i.e. asymmetric delays along lines).
As posted above:
Compare NLST to MetaRAM (now bankrupt) design:
http://www.ansoft.com/ie/Track2/DDR3%20Memory%20Module%20Design.pdf
It shows MetaRAM was to deliver 16GB 2Rank R-DIMMs in Dec 2008 at slower 1066 MT/s speed than the 1333 MT/s for the 8GB (and slower than 1333 MT/s for the NLST 16GB HyperCloud).
You can also see the problems with MetaRAM design – layout of chips is asymmetrical, and height increases considerably for the 16GB. It has the Hynix label on it.
You can see the “discrete decoupling capacitor” (compare to “embedded passives” with NLST IP).
And compare with NLST comments (also from earlier post above):
http://www.netlist.com/technology/technology.html
While some packaging companies stack devices to double capacity, Netlist achieves the same result without stacking, resulting in superior signal integrity and thermal efficiency. Stacking components results in unequal cooling of devices, causing one device to run slower than the other in the stack. This often results in module failures in high-density applications.
The density limitation is solved by proprietary board designs that use embedded passives to free up board real estate, permitting the assembly of more memory components on the substrate. The performance of the memory module is enhanced by fine-tuning the board design to minimize signal reflections, noise, and clock skews.
Sorry for incorrect use of HTML tags. What tag do you use to indent ?
Hi netlist,
No apologies necessary. All your efforts towards making this thread become as informative as it is are truly appreciated.
The html element “blockquote” can be used to indent, like in my comment above.
Netlist,
I am confused. I see the following part on netlist website
NMD2G7G3510BH-D85 16GB 1066MHz 2Rx4 16GB x4 4Gb DDP Planar LP
Does DDP mean staked(?) devices ? Why is Netlist selling staked devices and not using
their own proprietary technology ?
Netlist,
BTW, if staked technology is being used by Netlist then the metaram
patent will apply ? any ideas on how metaram patent might limit netlist ?
quote:
I am confused. I see the following part on netlist website
NMD2G7G3510BH-D85 16GB 1066MHz 2Rx4 16GB x4 4Gb DDP Planar LP
Does DDP mean staked(?) devices ? Why is Netlist selling staked devices and not using
their own proprietary technology ?
How do you presume it is “stacked DRAM” ?
NLST explicitly disparages stacked DRAM use by “other companies”:
MetaRAM had other IP (including “stacked DRAMs”) which it DID NOT use against NLST. What does that suggest ?
Instead it was one patent 7472220 that was used in
retaliatory suit against NLST:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7472220.pdf
As posted above:
7472220 – MetaRAM license to NLST ..
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=&reel=&frame=&pat=7472220&pub=&asnr=&asnri=&asne=&asnei=&asns=
That patent is now licensed to NLST as part of settlement (and any buyer – GOOG or other – of this IP from MetaRAM will not be able to use it against NLST).
From the PR at time of NLST/MetaRAM settlement:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Netlist-Announces-Settlement-prnews-1484777084.html?x=0&.v=1
Netlist Announces Settlement of Patent Infringement Lawsuits With MetaRAM
Press Release Source: Netlist, Inc. On Thursday January 28, 2010, 1:25 pm EST
…
A provision in the settlement protects Netlist if another company purchases MetaRAM’s patent and attempts to seek action against Netlist in the future.
quote:
I am confused. I see the following part on netlist website
NMD2G7G3510BH-D85 16GB 1066MHz 2Rx4 16GB x4 4Gb DDP Planar LP
Does DDP mean staked(?) devices ? Why is Netlist selling staked devices and not using
their own proprietary technology ?
“4Gb DDP” seems to be some type of memory as can also be seen here:
http://www.intel.com/technology/memory/ddr/valid/ddr2_800_sodimm_results.htm
M470T5267AZ3-CE7 Samsung K4T4G274QA-TCE7 4GB 4Gb(DDP) 8 5-5-5 0801 No
More specifically:
DDP = Dual Die Packaging
Where you have two dies in same packaging (as opposed to the traditional one die in one packaging).
That is, two memory chip wafer pieces inside one packaging.
This is not the same thing as “stacked DRAM” (MetaRAM) which relates more to how you organize memory chip packages on a memory module.
http://www.freshpatents.com/Memory-system-dt20080131ptan20080025128.php
might be the “NetVault” line of products which CEO Hong has mentioned in Needham conference audio (which include onboard flash memory to backup memory module contents in case of power failure).
Sorry cut the last para out about NetVault.
I was half thinking that until appropriate google searches revealed DDP means something else.
Netlist,
It is not clear that staked and DDP are different. From,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory
Stacked RAM modules contain two or more RAM chips stacked on top of each other. This allows large modules (like 512mb or 1Gig SO-DIMM) to be manufactured using cheaper low density wafers. Stacked chip modules draw more power.
Does this not mean DDP = 2 dies in same package = staked ?
Totally confused now.
Another item from Netlist webpage
http://www.netlist.com/technology/technology.html
>>While some packaging companies stack devices to double capacity, Netlist achieves the same result without stacking, resulting in superior signal integrity and thermal efficiency.
appears that DDP is same as staked ? No ?
would be dangerous if hypercloud is using staked technology ?
quote:
Stacked RAM modules contain two or more RAM chips stacked on top of each other. This allows large modules (like 512mb or 1Gig SO-DIMM) to be manufactured using cheaper low density wafers. Stacked chip modules draw more power.
Does this not mean DDP = 2 dies in same package = staked ?
An attempt at explanation of the terminology:
“die” – small stamp-sized piece of the shiny silicon wafer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_preparation
“memory chip” – die embedded within that black-plastic type stuff that people usually call a “chip” – has metal conductive pins coming out of it (shorter in the case of surface-mount chips).
“memory module” – that stuff you put in the memory slot of your computer – comprising a circuit board (maybe sophisticated many layered or including resistor/capacitors within it – as with NLST’s “embedded passives”). Circuit board has many “memory chips” on it (see above).
NLST technology lies not in “die”, or in “memory chip”. They buy the memory chip from Hynix and others (first NLST HyperCloud slated to use Hynix “memory chips”.
So Hynix is a “memory chip” manufacturer.
NLST is a consumer of those “memory chips” and a manufacturer of “memory modules”.
NLST combines “memory chips” so they fit on a “memory module”. This they do by IP (intellectual property/patents) that includes “embedded passives”, plus IP on how to place “memory chips” for even heat dissipation. That is, there is IP related to how you structure a “memory module” i.e. how you use those “memory chips” to construct a “memory module”.
In addition NLST has IP in extra circuitry that goes on the “memory module”. These are chips that NLST makes on it’s own – the buffer chip is a specialized ASIC for doing stuff with control signals, address lines and data lines that goto “memory chips” on the “memory module”.
In addition NLST has some circuitry for “load isolation” so they only connect (perhaps imprecise here) some set of “memory chips” to be visible at a time etc.
This is NLST’s purpose. They do not indulge in “memory chips” design, nor in “die” or wafer. They basically make complete “memory modules” that people can buy and put in their computer motherboard directly.
So NLST is a “memory module” maker, and it has IP to back that up. That IP relates to how the “memory module” is made/structured as well as all the EXTRA circuitry that they have put on that memory module.
MetaRAM was similar – they ALSO do (or did – now that they are prevented from doing so after settlement, and well .. bankruptcy).
MetaRAM ALSO has IP in load isolation, and in “memory chip” placement on the memory module. Since “memory module” is usually a standard sized piece of circuit board (albeit advanced circuit board), they have to come up with ways to fit more memory chips on there. Their “stacked DRAM” IP relates to THAT aspect.
NLST does not use “stacked DRAMs” because as pointed out above they feel it is inferior way of doing it.
Coming back to MetaRAM – so MetaRAM ALSO makes “memory modules”. In addition they were willing to work with Hynix and others to either sell them the memory modules (i.e. completed memory modules) for resale, OR they were willing to share their IP with Hynix and others so OTHER companies could also do something similar. This is the “royalty-based” model (i.e. instead of just making all memory modules yourself). This model is exemplified by RMBS. NLST has referred to it in the Needham conference audio.
quote:
we have strong IP which create competitive barriers as well as provide future avenues for a royalty based business model
The problem with MetaRAM was they don’t have IP in “embedded passives” etc. which means they not able to create more space on the same small circuit board as NLST can do.
They try to fit more “memory chips” by stacking them i.e. “stacked DRAMs” or other stuff to fit in more chips on the same “memory module”.
As noted above, that is not how NLST does it.
A second problem with MetaRAM was their IP is from much later – and it could be said is “derivative” or inspired by NLST IP. You have to ask yourself why a high flier like MetaRAM (with support from INTC and others – with Hynix and STEC and others all planning to use their IP/buffer chips) – why MetaRAM suddenly closed shop ?. Was it related to the GOOG/NLST lawsuit and was there some realization within MetaRAM. Why did MetaRAM say they only sold $37,000 worth of stuff and “destroyed” it (from MetaRAM court filings) – what’s the hurry to “destroy” stuff ?. MetaRAM was trying to minimize the potential for infringement penalty.
So basically NLST make and MetaRAM made whole “memory modules” – they did not make “memory chips” or “dies”.
Inphi is similar – except they may not even make the “memory module”, but just the buffer chips and allied circuitry so others can make it. Difference is they hold even less IP than MetaRAM. Inphi is a component maker – they make lots of different components. They were hoping to step in after MetaRAM dropped out.
So in summary:
Stacked DRAM refers to stacking “memory chips” – and is a way of arranging the “memory chips” on the “memory module”.
DDP – dual die packaging. This is when “memory chip” manufacturers like Hynix make “memory chips” with TWO dies in them.
So the “memory module” that NLST/MetaRAM make can include a normal “memory module” or a DDP “memory module”. They thus label their memory module specs with “DDP” or no DDP.
Hope this resolves the confusion between:
DDP – this is done by “memory chip” manufacturers like Hynix etc.
stacked DRAMs – this was done by MetaRAM in how it places those “memory chips” on “memory module”
They are two different things – relating to things that go on at two different scales – one within the “memory chip” black plastic packaging, and one on the “memory module” circuit board.
Hope this helps.
Slight correction to sentence above ..
quote:
So the “memory module” that NLST/MetaRAM make can include a normal “memory module” or a DDP “memory module”. They thus label their memory module specs with “DDP” or no DDP.
Should read:
So the “memory module” that NLST/MetaRAM make can include a normal “memory chip” or a DDP “memory chip”. They thus label their memory module specs with “DDP” or no DDP.
Thank you netlist. I think I am beginning to understand
the difference.
In a recent interview, NLST CEO said they strategically dedicated and spent over $10 million for R&D costs for products such as Hypercloud and NetVault. Not surprising that they are vigorously protecting investment in IP portfolio through negotiation and litigation as last resort. They seem to have facts and law on their side.
First, MetaRAM settled ‘386 patent infringement in December 2009, and agreed to cooperate and stop its infringement. Will MetaRAM’s cooperation include full disclosure of relevant customer lists including in Google’s case?
Next, Inphi must Answer by Feb. 11, 2010 to NETLIST’s Amended Complaint that added ‘912 and ‘274 patents in addition to initial allegations of ‘386 patent infringement. USPTO issued Patent 7,619,912, entitled “Memory Module Decoder” on 11/17/2009, and Patent 7,636,274, entitled “Memory Module with a Circuit Providing Load Isolation and Memory Domain Translation” on 12/22/2009. It appears Inphi hired a former employee of MetaRAM.
On Google’s Declaratory Relief on Non-Infringement of ‘386 patent, and Netlist v Google case for ‘912 patent infringement, a case management conference is set for 3/4/2010.
Is Google running out of time? As in above post, that judge Hon. Armstrong denied request to consolidate, and in essence said either settle or try the case on its merits, but no delays. Interesting to note that the Order strongly suggested parties “to engage in a settlement conference or mediation, sooner rather than later”. The judge also mentioned one of the reasons for denial was that the Court already held claims construction hearing and construed disputed claim terms. It seems that the Court ruled largely in favor of NLST patent claims construction. Same Court granted Netlist Discovery request to examine Google server. Subsequently, NLST sued Google alleging ‘912 patent infringement.