ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Trade Regulation Talk

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

International Law

: Trade Regulation Talk

ADVERTISEMENTS

FTC Asks High Court to Review Standard-Setting Case

This posting was written by Jeffrey May, Editor of CCH Trade Regulation Reporter.

The Federal Trade Commission has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal appellate court decision that set aside a Commission finding that Rambus, Inc. had engaged in monopolistic conduct in violation of the FTC Act, as well as the Commission?s remedy order.

At issue is a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., holding that the FTC failed to demonstrate that Rambus Inc.?s actions before a standard setting organization (SSO) amounted to exclusionary conduct ?under settled principles of antitrust law? (2008-1 Trade Cases ¶76,121).

Acquisition of Monopoly Power

According to the appellate court, the agency did not prove that the developer of computer chip memory technologies unlawfully acquired its monopoly power in the relevant markets for four technologies that had been incorporated into industry standards for dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips.

The FTC sought review pursuant to Section 16(a) (3) of the FTC Act. This provision permits the FTC to represent itself before the Supreme Court if the Solicitor General declines to file a petition for certiorari. In its petition, the Commission noted that it has exercised this authority on only three prior occasions.

Questions for Review

The agency asked the Court to consider:

(1) whether deceptive conduct that significantly contributes to a defendant?s acquisition of monopoly power violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act and

(2) whether deceptive conduct that distorts the competitive process in a market, with the effect of avoiding the imposition of pricing constraints that would otherwise exist because of that process, is anticompetitive under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.


The Commission vote authorizing the Office of General Counsel to file the petition with the Supreme Court was 4-0.

A news release on the development appears here on the FTC website. The petition in FTC v. Rambus Inc. appears here. Further details will appear at CCH Trade Regulation Reporter ¶60,021.

Full post as published by Trade Regulation Talk on December 03, 2008 (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!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/04/26 12:10:08)