“questionable facts”

please feel free to dispute any of the ‘questionable facts’ i have posted. As it is, all you did was question my integrity, which is usually the first sign of someone who has no idea what the facts are. and i don’t work for Rambus by the way.

you guys make me laugh….”price fixing? sure, that’s fine. stealing intellectual property? yeah, no big deal. BUT I’LL BE DAMNED IF A COMPANY DEFENDS THEMSELVES PUBLICALLY!!! YOU BASTARDS!!!” Quite a moral compass you have.

(I’ll save you some time and post some facts. but don’t let me deter you. if you find something incorrect that I’ve posted, by all means fill me in.)

Micron DOJ, Micron employees fixed DRAM prices

“Infineon did not show any expectation that the patents and applications identified by the district court covered the SDRAM standard.[11] Instead, the record shows that, despite Rambus?s best efforts, Rambus did not obtain SDRAM claims.”
(ie. Rambus has no patents covering the JEDEC SDRAM standard)
CAFC decision (Search for Conclusion to find the part where they reverse anything against rambus and affirm the decisions for rambus)

“(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.”
from the FTC decision