T
Tim Sullivan
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.
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.
pPP