The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.01 - January/February (2009 vol.29)
pp: 139-143
Richard H. Stern ,
One of the Last Updates on Rambus Standardization Skullduggery
Micro Law, Rambus skullduggery
Richard H. Stern, "One of the Last Updates on Rambus Standardization Skullduggery", IEEE Micro, vol.29, no. 1, pp. 139-143, January/February 2009, doi:10.1109/MM.2009.11
1. FTC CertiorariPetition in FTC v. Rambus Inc., US Supreme Court, Nov. 2008 (hereafter cited as "FTC Petition") at 3.
2. "Preventing Abuse of IEEE Standards Policy," vol. 21, no. 3, May 2001, pp. 8-11; "More Standardization Skullduggery," vol. 21, no. 4, Jul./Aug. 2001, pp. 12-15; "Another Update on Standardization Skullduggery," vol. 21, no. 5, Sep./Oct. 2001, pp. 8-10; "FTC Piles onto Rambus' Standardization Skullduggery," vol. 22, no. 4, July 2002, pp. 6-7, 86-87; "Weird Turn of Events in Continuing Rambus Saga," vol. 23, no. 1, Jan./Feb. 2003, pp. 76-80; "Unresolved Legal Questions about Patents and Standard Setting," vol. 23, no. 5, Sep./Oct. 2003, pp. 5, 72-74; and "Coming Down the Home Stretch in the Rambus Standardization Skullduggery Saga: To Levy or Not to Levy Royalties," vol. 27, no. 2, Mar./Apr. 2007, pp. 80-82.
3. The FTC said that by this time "industry members had become 'locked in' to the newly adopted standards because of the cost and delay of switching to alternatives." FTC Petition at 8.
4. This corresponds to the royalty regime that applies in patent infringement litigation after findings of infringement and that the patentee is entitled to a reasonable royalty. The royalty level is determined by applying a list of factors known as the "Georgia-Pacific" test.
5. Rambus Inc. v. FTC, 522 F.3d 456 (US District Court for the DC Circuit), 2008.
6. NYNEX Corp. v. Discon Inc., 525 US 128, 1998.
7. This is only the fourth time this has occurred. See FTC Petition at 1 n.1. The FTC stated: "The Commission does so here because it believes that the decision below will have exceptionally serious adverse consequences for enforcement of the antitrust laws."
8. FTC v. Sperry &Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co., 405 US 233, 1972.
16 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool