SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Don Green who wrote (86073)4/18/2003 10:41:44 PM
From: Don Green  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
FTC denies Rambus motion for summary judgement

By Jack Robertson

04/18/2003 1:07 PM EST
URL: ebnews.com

The Federal Trade Commission chief administrative law judge this week denied a motion by Rambus Inc. for a summary judgment in its favor in the FTC antitrust case against the Los Altos, Calif., chip designer.

The FTC trial will begin April 30 in Washington to determine whether Rambus acted in restraint of trade by failing to disclose pending synchronous DRAM patents to the industry JEDEC committee, which was in the process of drafting an SDRAM open standard.

Rambus had argued that the JEDEC patent disclosure polices were ambiguous and that the firm had left JEDEC before the industry SDRAM and DDR SDRAM standards were adopoted. Judge Stephen McGuire ruled that the issues were material to the case and should be decided in the trial phase.

The FTC antitrust complaint concerning Rambus silence on its patents at JEDEC is separate from the patent infringement cases pending in federal courts involving Infineon Technologies A.G. In that action, the federal circuit of the Court of Appeals overturned a lower court verdict that Rambus committed fraud by not disclosing its pending patents to JEDEC.



To: Don Green who wrote (86073)4/19/2003 4:51:04 PM
From: richard surckla  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
GREEN MAN... "Thanks I will" I WILL WHAT? Did I direct a post to you that you're answering? I don't think so. So what are you talking about?