this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
259 points (99.6% liked)

PC Gaming

14954 readers
668 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 87Six@lemmy.zip 44 points 3 days ago (2 children)

YES

DO IT AGAIN

DO IT LIKE 2002 AND BRING BACK MEMORIES SINCE I WAS 1 YEAR OLD WATCHING THEM GET SUED THE FIRST TIME

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

BRING BACK MEMORIES

Yes, please, bring back read only memories; or ~~RAM~~ ROM for short.

[–] Trail@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

I didn't actually mean RAM, but ROM!

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

You remember things from when you were 1?

Eh, I have flashes from that time. But remembering RAM companies getting regulated at that age does seem a bit much

[–] vardogor@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

maybe they're like Terrence Howard and have memories from inside the womb, too. after all, 1*1=2

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Probably shouldnt let corporations declare they own all RAM produced for the next 3-5 years also.

[–] who@feddit.org 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Good. They need a serious kick in the teeth.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Does anyone have a non-paywalled source on the lawsuit and article that references it which is linked at the top of this article? This is an interesting development that also makes much more sense than what is typically accepted as an explanation as it alleges the price inflation resulted from capitalistic imperatives of profit maximization (prioritizing high-demand production) as an act of purposeful collusion, apparently with successful fines enforced by both the US and China in the past. Would be interesting to see the specifics of that, as I wonder how much the rapidly shifted legal landscape in the US has enabled this.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 days ago

Not the law360, but there are others that are covering it https://wccftech.com/memory-trio-samsung-sk-hynix-micron-face-class-action-lawsuit/

search for this case number for more like it 3:26-cv-06345

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What's the typical explanation?

[–] orioler25@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

That it is just the demand in itself and the stupidity or "greed" of AI and chip manufacturing companies, rather than the inevitable trajectory of a capitalist economy where infinite growth subordinates the real material limitations of production. So, they produce the conditions where profit increases by cannabilizing the market, which is a different thing than them just being some particularly bad acting individuals.