Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Historical context & prior cases

  • Commenters recall past DRAM price-fixing scandals and fines, noting this “once a decade” pattern and prior US and EU actions.
  • A 2022 US case was dismissed for lack of evidence of an explicit agreement, reinforcing how hard these cases are to prove.

Is there collusion now?

  • Some believe current conditions don’t require collusion: AI demand is so extreme that high prices follow naturally.
  • Others argue tacit collusion is likely: a small oligopoly can move in parallel on supply and pricing without leaving a paper trail.
  • OpenAI’s large public memory-buy commitment is viewed by some as a “legal” public signal that made it easy for suppliers to raise prices in lockstep.

Market structure & barriers

  • Only three major DRAM vendors control ~90% of supply, with long investment cycles and huge capex.
  • High technical, IP, and tooling barriers make new entrants almost impossible in the short term; even large chip firms can’t easily pivot into DRAM.
  • Some push back on calling RAM a mere “commodity,” emphasizing its extreme engineering complexity.

HBM and discontinuation of DDR3/DDR4

  • The lawsuit claims the firms restricted DRAM supply under the pretext of shifting to HBM and dropping DDR3/DDR4.
  • Many commenters see sunsetting DDR3 as normal, but are split on DDR4:
    • One side: DDR4 is still widely useful and profitable; turning it off looks like herding customers into pricier DDR5/HBM.
    • Other side: aftermarket DDR4 demand is niche vs datacenter/AI; fabs are rationally reallocating to higher-margin HBM/DDR5.

Legal standards & antitrust challenges

  • Multiple comments stress that restricting supply is legal unless there’s an agreement among competitors; proving that agreement is the core challenge.
  • Some advocate shifting antitrust law toward inferring collusion from outcomes (sustained high margins, no new entrants) rather than requiring “smoking gun” evidence.
  • Others warn this risks punishing firms for not having “a crystal ball” in a boom–bust industry.

China, geopolitics, and alternatives

  • Some see Chinese DRAM maker CXMT as the only realistic check on the “memory cartel,” even if it initially serves mainly China.
  • Others worry about long‑term dependence on a state-backed competitor and note export controls and ASML’s limited capacity as structural constraints.

Consumer and ecosystem impact

  • Many highlight knock-on effects: higher costs for PCs, consoles, embedded devices, and data centers, with smaller buyers crowded out by hyperscalers and AI labs.
  • Others note that lawsuits often end in tiny class-action payouts and limited deterrence, given how small fines are relative to profits.