Public version of FTC/Rambus Initial decision released

http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/index.htm
Text of Initial Decision of Chief Administrative Law Judge Stephen J.
McGuire [Public Version] [PDF 19MB]

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/02/rambusid.htm
Summary of the Initial Decision

In his initial decision, Judge McGuire stated that the issues at
question were:

(1) whether Rambus engaged in a pattern of deceptive, exclusionary
conduct by subverting an open standards process;

(2) whether Rambus used that conduct to capture a monopoly in
technology-related markets;

(3) whether Rambus' conduct violated antitrust law; and

(4) whether Rambus' conduct resulted in anticompetitive injury.

The decision states that Complaint Counsel failed to prove the
violations alleged in the Complaint. The decision states that on the
basis of the evidence Judge McGuire concluded:

"(1) the EIA/JEDEC patent policy encouraged the early, voluntary
disclosure of essential patents and Respondent did not violate this
policy; (2) the case law upon which Complaint Counsel rely to impose
antitrust liability is clearly distinguishable on the facts of this
case; (3) Respondent's conduct did not amount to deception and did not
violate any 'extrinsic duties,' such as a duty of good faith to
disclose relevant patent information; (4) Respondent did not have any
undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was
a JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose; (5) amendments to
broaden Respondent's patent applications while a member of JEDEC were
not improper, either as a matter of law or fact; (6) by having a
legitimate business justification for its actions, Respondent did not
engage in exclusionary conduct; (7) Respondent did not intentionally
mislead JEDEC by knowingly violating a JEDEC disclosure rule; (8)
there is no causal link between JEDEC standardization and Respondent's
acquisition of monopoly power; (9) members of JEDEC did not rely on
any alleged omission or misrepresentation by Respondent and, if they
had, such reliance would not have been reasonable; (10) the challenged
conduct did not result in anticompetitive effects, as Complaint
Counsel did not demonstrate that there were viable alternatives to
Respondent's superior technologies; (11) the challenged conduct did
not result in anticompetitive effects as the challenged conduct did
not result in higher prices to consumers; and (12) JEDEC is not locked
in to using Respondent's technologies in its current standardization
efforts."

"For these reasons, Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their
burden to establish liability for the violations alleged. Accordingly,
the Complaint is DISMISSED," Judge McGuire wrote.

The Judge's initial decision is subject to review by the full
Commission, either on its own motion or at the request of either
party. The initial decision will become the decision of the Commission
30 days after it is served on the parties or 30 days after the filing
of a timely notice of appeal (whichever is later), unless: (1) a party
filing a notice of appeal perfects an appeal by the timely filing of
an appeal brief, or (2) the Commission takes certain other actions
detailed in its Rules.

Tim Sullivan <timsullivan2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip spam>

**** you and the horse you rode in on, troll. PLONK!

J.

The little lost angel wrote:

> So in short, we're all going to have to pay the Rambust tax on our
> RAMs?
>
>

Say goodbye to cheap ram. Isn't it great when -LAWYERS- get our money like
this? Worthless bottom feeding scum of the earth who produce absolutely
nothing wothwhile to anyone except other Lawyers.

--

Stacey

"jack" <jack@ibm.com> wrote in message news:<c1huv3$1j66vi$1@ID-127331.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Tim Sullivan <timsullivan2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip spam>
>
> **** you and the horse you rode in on, troll. PLONK!
>
> J.

Just 2 interesting snippets I thought you might enjoy. Be sure I will
post more especially more where the Judge implies that witnesses
against Rambus were not credible and came close to perjury.

--------------
824. The chairman of the meeting, Gordon Kelley, testified that prior
to the May 1992
meeting Crisp had spoken to him about the possibility of Rambus
scheduling a presentation
concerning DRAM design. (G. Kelley, Tr. 2553). G. Kelley also
testified that he had refused to
allow Rambus to present its technology for standardization at JEDEC on
this and another
occasion, even though he had never barred any other member company
tfom presenting its
technology. (G. Kelley, Tr. 2649-58).
825. G. Kelley had a clear confict of interest; he made and enforced
his unilateral
decision to bar Rambus from presenting its technology two weeks after
he wrote in an internal
company document that his company's interests were threatened by the
Rambus technology and
were best served if Rambus "fails to become standard." (R 279 at 7).
He did not disclose this
confict to Crisp or to anyone else. (G. Kelley, Tr. 2656-57).
---------------------------
Even witnesses who testified that there was an obligation to disclose
patent applications
failed to act in a manner consistent with their testimony. For
example, JEDEC Chairman Desi
Rhoden was a named inventor of a patent covering the SLDRAM standard.
F. 713. He failed to
disclose the patent application to JEDEC. F. 717. At trial, however,
Rhoden testified that even
non-members, including visiting guest scientists or engineers from
foreign countries, were
obligated to disclose their company s patents and patent applications
that were related in some
268
general way to a subject being discussed at JEDEC. F. 717. Under the
Gypsum rule, Rhoden
testimony, which was inconsistent with his actions, can be accorded
little, if any weight. See
Gypsum 333 US. at 395.

So in short, we're all going to have to pay the Rambust tax on our
RAMs?

I hope them Jedec fellows have anticipated the potential of a Rambus
victory and keep away from any Rambus stuff for DDR-2 and such.



--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

In article <1d62d428.0402251556.4de047f1@posting.google.com>,
timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) writes:
> "jack" <jack@ibm.com> wrote in message news:<c1huv3$1j66vi$1@ID-127331.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> Tim Sullivan <timsullivan2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <snip spam>
>>
>> **** you and the horse you rode in on, troll. PLONK!
>>
>> J.
>
> Just 2 interesting snippets I thought you might enjoy. Be sure I will
> post more especially more where the Judge implies that witnesses
> against Rambus were not credible and came close to perjury.
>
> --------------
> 824. The chairman of the meeting, Gordon Kelley, testified that prior

I have known Gordon Kelley for decades, though we've drifted out of
contact in recent years. He is a man of utmost integrity. Any apparent
lack thereof coming out of these court proceedings is, IMHO because
we have a LEGAL system and not a JUSTICE system, and such things as
plain-old honesty don't translate well when funneled though lawyers.

Dale Pontius

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:35:52 +0000, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Say goodbye to cheap ram. Isn't it great when -LAWYERS- get our money like
>this? Worthless bottom feeding scum of the earth who produce absolutely
>nothing wothwhile to anyone except other Lawyers.

Let's be nice, I'm pretty sure there are some decent lawyers around...
I know some myself though a few of them have quitted the practise to
become teachers pPP

The problem is, I think the US legal system encourages the kind of
lawyers we love to hate.
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

The little lost angel <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:35:52 +0000, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
:: Say goodbye to cheap ram. Isn't it great when -LAWYERS- get our
:: money like this? Worthless bottom feeding scum of the earth who
:: produce absolutely nothing wothwhile to anyone except other Lawyers.
:
: Let's be nice, I'm pretty sure there are some decent lawyers around...

As a twist to that great gentleman, Will Rogers: "I've never met a
lawyer I didn't hate."


: I know some myself though a few of them have quitted the practise to
: become teachers pPP

LOL! Sort of like the mother virus producing an inexhaustible supply of
contagions....


:
: The problem is, I think the US legal system encourages the kind of
: lawyers we love to hate.

That Angel, is putting it **mildly**! The US legal system as it now
stands is **designed** to produce nothing but greedy, corrupt, lying
scumbags who do NOTHING to improve the quality of life for anyone
outside of said system. Really, when you think about it, they're quite
homologous to the Borg....but worse!

J.
-
--------
The end to "Personal Computing" as we know it is just around the corner.
TCPA will take away ALL rights from you, the consumer. Learn more
about it here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html and
here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html

timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:

>"For these reasons, Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their
>burden to establish liability for the violations alleged. Accordingly,
>the Complaint is DISMISSED," Judge McGuire wrote.

Well, maybe Rambust isn't QUITE as bad as they've been made out to be,
then. They're still scum, however. Recall how they threatened to
withhold SDRAM and DDR licenses from any company that challenged them
in court.

jack wrote:

> The little lost angel <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote:

> :
> : The problem is, I think the US legal system encourages the kind of
> : lawyers we love to hate.
>
> That Angel, is putting it **mildly**! The US legal system as it now
> stands is **designed** to produce nothing but greedy, corrupt, lying
> scumbags who do NOTHING to improve the quality of life for anyone
> outside of said system. Really, when you think about it, they're quite
> homologous to the Borg....but worse!
>


Exactly. A friend had a problem with a siding company. They wouldn't come
finish the job yet demanded full payment. He paid them, yet months later
they still never came and finished the job so he had to pay someone else
$5000 to finish the job. Lawyers got involved. My friend "won" $5000 from
the original company which the Laywer then kept for himself. Originally
said he'd do it for $500 (paid up front) yet after they won, claimed he put
in more hours than he planed and $5000 was his new fee. So then my friend
sued the Lawyer with a different Lawyer (another $500) and the judge
(another Lawyer) said this sounded fair to him for the Lawyer to keep the
settlement... So he was $1000 worse off then if he had done nothing and the
lawyers bwtween them, walked away with $6000. Whose quality of life was
improved?

My own dealing with Lawyers were the "If you pay me X, I know people in the
court house who can make this problem go away..." 20 years ago my DUI
paperwork "Got lost" after paying the Lawyer $1000, never even went to
court. If I found a Lawyer like this, you can imagine who the Rambus
Lawyers know?

--

Stacey