- Saturday, 21 November 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS
The INQUIRER - powered by top surgeons at Harefield Hospital
Rambus gloats as FTC drops antitrust charges
THE SLOW WHEELS OF JUSTICE have finally ground to a complete halt in the Federal Trade Commission's case against chip designer Rambus, with the US regulator dropping allegations that the firm violated antitrust laws.
The FTC had been wrestling with Rambus for yonks over claims the firm manipulated the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC) - the body in charge of memory industry standards, not some distant galaxy - to adopt memory technology designs that Rambus was patenting.
According to those claims, Rambus had a penchant for waiting until standards were accepted and adopted by JEDEC before turning around and demanding royalties, suing any companies that refused to pay up.
In 2002, the FTC began an antitrust action, alleging that Rambus had been deceitful by patenting technology on the sly whilst JEDEC was slowly incorporating bits and bobs of it into what would later become DDR SDRAM specifications.
According to the FTC, the industry would probably have used different standards had it known Rambus would milk members for all the patents were worth. Rambus, of course, refuted any suggestion of foul play.
After seven years of bitter legal battles, the US Supreme Court was finally asked to intervene, but decided not to consider the decision made by the District of Columbia Circuit of Appeals, which had thrown the case out in April for lack of evidence. The Supreme Court's decision not to take the case forced the FTC to throw in the towel, and the commission announced on Thursday evening that "further litigation in this matter would not be in the public interest".
With a victory snort, Thomas Lavelle, senior vice president and general counsel at Rambus, declared his firm was "pleased to have finally put this matter behind us", going on to say, "The FTC's decision to drop its remaining JEDEC-related claim against us was the right one."
Now all that remains is for Rambus to put an end to its equally lengthy court cases with Hynix and Samsung over royalty payments before it can crawl back gleefully into its darkened cave, like Gollum, clutching its preciousss patents.
Back in March, Korean memory maker Hynix suffered a blow to its legal campaign when a proposed judgment ordered the firm to pay $379 million to Rambus in royalty fees.
Sheesh, for that amount of money, you'd expect those chips to be nothing short of gourmet. µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
"Gloates"??? These guys have not received one red penny.....even Hynix hasn't paid yet....they are waiting on Judge Whyte's decision now....Rambus won this 3 part trial a long time ago.
What is there to gloat over?
Sylvie Barak is pathetically uninformed!
Re: "What really got the FTC's knickers in a twist was Rambus' penchant for waiting until the standards were accepted and adopted by JEDEC before turning around and demanding royalties, suing any companies that refused to pay it."
That comment does not reflect what actually happened. And the fundamental problem with the Rambus situation is that it is a very complex, now 18 year long story, and you have to spend time -- a LOT of time -- to really understand what happened. Your quote in this paragraph reflects what certain parties WANT people to think, but it's not accurate. In this instance, the FTC became a corrupt political tool of Micron (a fact which can pretty much be proven), doing Micron's bidding for it as an attack dog "sic'd" on Rambus. The facts are that EVERY unbiased entity that has looked at the whole situation in detail ... this included the FTC's own CHIEF Administrative Law Judge who presided over the longest trial in the FTC's history and completely exhonerated Rambus .... also the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circut, and a JURY trial in San Jose, among others .... has concluded that Rambus did nothing illegal. The illegality was on the side of the memory cartel (Micron, Hynix, Samsung, Infineon and others) that wanted to drive Rambus out of business, and that fact will be proven when the Rambus vs. Cartel anti-trust case begins, currently scheduled for September.
Mention Rambus and the spinners will be there in no time.
So Rambus spinners, that was not a submarine patent? Really? And you're not patent trolls? Really?
Care to also tell us what was your response to the E.C.'s S.O.? Look up MEMO/07/330.
So you're saying the FTC was right, even though their own Administrative Law Judge found in favor of Rambus in a 300 page initial decision? And the Court of Appeals Federal Circut was wrong in siding with Rambus on appeal and using strong language against the FTC's case? And the Solicitor General was wrong in declining to support the FTC's case with the Supreme Court? And then, to top it off, the Supreme Court is wrong in rejecting the FTC's request for writ of certiori? What about the fact that Micron, the ringleader of the CONVICTED & FINED manufacturing monopoly conspirators that have been slandering Rambus for years, was found to have written briefs for the FTC case against Rambus? Doesn't quite add up with your opinion. Don't be a shill, do your own homework!
"THE SLOW WHEELS OF JUSTICE have finally ground to a complete halt in the FTC's case against chip designer Rambus"
The whole point of this is that it was never about justice. Now it is time for a congressional investigation into how and why the FTC has become the long arm of disreputable corporate interests.
Rambus is a true inventive company who has suffered at the hands of a syndicate of intellectual property thieves who first steal and then lie and cheat to cover the ugly reality of their conduct.
There is plenty of reason to believe that Micron was the ringleader and we should all be asking ourselves why Micron was issued a get out of jail free card for their role in this fiasco.
Micron is also a member of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, a group better known as the Piracy Coalition. Micron's membership in the Piracy Coalition is consistent with their conduct in the Rambus case.
Piracy Coalition members are doing their best to socialize American Ingenuity for their and only their profits. Piracy Coalition members are known for their arrogant and belligerent attitude towards inventors. They are serial infringers with a huge appetite for others inventions.
Misappropriated inventions are moved to low wage countries, cheating both inventors and the American public of jobs and prosperity.
Virtually every member of the Piracy Coalition deserves scrutiny.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
I'm sure that if one of the memory companies had been the one surreptitiously planning to patent basic synchronous DRAM control techniques in those JEDEC meetings rather than poor little old Rambus, whiners' tunes would be different today.
It doesn't matter who subverts the standardization process - big guy or small guy. It is still wrong.
You sound just like Charlie.
Wow! Just mention Rambus and the stalwart defenders and spinners come out swinging. If Rambus actually made a product (any product), then I might be a little more sympathetic toward their case. There is a big difference between what is legally wrong and what is ethically/morally wrong. While Rambus has technically done nothing legally wrong (that can be directly proved), there is little doubt as to what kind of company Rambus is (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080423082101546&query=Rambus). To use the direct opinion of Judge Williams (04/03/08) "deceit merely enabling a monopolist to charge higher prices than it otherwise could have charged ... would not in itself constitute monopolization."