Top 4th of July Sales Best 4K Projectors 7 Early Prime Day Deals Wi-Fi Range Extenders My Favorite Summer Gadgets Cheap Car Insurance Target's 4th of July Sale Best Running Earbuds, Headphones

Innovation missing from Rambus radar



Innovation missing from Rambus radar

In response to the April 30 Perspective column by Michael Kanellos, "X-22, come in?":

So, how many Rambus call options have you purchased? :-)

I just wanted to drop a line regarding your recent article on regarding the Rambus lawsuit. I feel as though some important issues were not raised, and the concerns of the "zealots" were inaccurate.

Am I a "zealot"? Of course. I believe that technology companies should innovate, not rewrite their patents based on information garnered from a JEDEC meeting. The crux of the issue for many technology enthusiasts is the continued use of the Patent & Trademark Office to stifle innovation throughout the computer industry through the blunt force of "intellectual property infringement" lawsuits.

For those of us "in the trenches," so to speak, performance is king.

And by taking a look at enthusiast Web sites like AnandTech and Tom's Hardware Guide, you can see how Rambus is 5 percent technology, 10 percent marketing and 85 percent lawyers. The fact that Intel has tried (and up to this point, has failed) to force-feed the industry Rambus via the chipset and P4 market demonstrates how secondary innovation has become to many publicly traded technology companies.

From where I sit, it appears that Intel's decisions were made based upon increasing the value of their shares in Rambus, with the target of innovation completely absent from the radar.

Rambus isn't the underdog here--innovation is. And that's one underdog I want to stand behind.

John Anderson