ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IP Blawg

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: IP Blawg

FTC Rebuffs Rambus

By Farella Braun + Martel LLP

ADVERTISEMENTS

The battle between computer memory developer Rambus and the Federal Trade Commission over Rambus' participation in the setting of standards for dynamic random access memory ("DRAM") technology took a sudden turn this week when a unanimous panel of the FTC reversed a decision rendered two years ago by an administrative law judge that Rambus did not unlawfully monopolize the market for DRAM. In its lengthy ruling, the FTC concluded that Rambus had intentionally deceived the governing standard-setting body and engaged in monopolistic practices by actively participating in the adoption of a standard that was covered by Rambus' patents. The FTC will next address the remedies to be assessed against Rambus.

The seeds of the dispute were planted in the mid 1990's in connection with the work of the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council ("JEDEC"), a standard-setting organization made up of manufacturers of various electronic devices, such as DRAM. A principal purpose of JEDEC was to develop standards that would permit electronic components developed by different manufacturers to work together.

According to the FTC, Rambus participated in JEDEC activities for several years and did not disclose to the other members that it had issued patents or patent applications that related to technologies being evaluated as possible industry standards. The FTC further contends that when some of the standards adopted were in fact covered by Rambus' undisclosed patents, Rambus was able to "lock in" the market. Rambus argued that other JEDEC members knew about its patents and that it had done nothing wrong. In the first round of litigation, the administrative law judge agreed with Rambus. However, on appeal the FTC disagreed, and its opinion is laced with scathing language indicating strong disapproval of Rambus' conduct.

Standard-setting organizations play an important role in the advancement of technology. Will the FTC's decision change the way these bodies operate? Should the system be changed? Weigh in.

Today's Blogger: Bob Sloss

Full post as published by IP Blawg on August 04, 2006 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0024 secs (from cache 10/31/26 11:46:49)