Micron Technology Disagrees with Jury Decision in Rambus Antitrust Trial

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

Save & Share Article

What’s this?

Digg	My Yahoo	Fark
del.icio.us	Newsvine	Reddit

Rate This Article

Boise, March 27: Micron Technology, Inc., announced that it strongly disagrees with a federal court jury decision that Rambus Inc., did not violate antitrust laws or commit fraud by illegally deceiving members of JEDEC in the establishment of important standards in the computer chip industry. The jury decision concluded a trial that began in late January in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose.

In the trial, Micron and fellow memory manufacturers Hynix Semiconductor and Nanya Technology argued that Rambus violated antitrust laws by monopolizing, or attempting to monopolize, six technology Markets through Rambus patents covering features in JEDEC industry standards for DRAM interface technology.

Micron strongly believes that the evidence entered at the trial proves that Rambus violated antitrust laws and committed fraud, and Micron plans to appeal the outcome. Micron officials also believe that the jury's decision is inconsistent with previous decisions by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the European Commission (EC). In August 2006, the FTC unanimously found that, through a course of illegal and deceptive conduct, Rambus was able to distort the critical standard-setting process of JEDEC and engaged in an anticompetitive "hold up" of the computer memory industry. Similarly, in July 2007, the EC issued a Statement of Objections describing its views that Rambus engaged in intentional deceptive conduct in the standard-setting process or "patent ambush" and violated EC law by subsequently claiming unreasonable royalties for the use of relevant patents.

"Micron believes that Rambus has engaged in a pattern of deception, destruction of evidence, false testimony and other improper activities designed to mislead and to extract unjust patent licensing fees and damages. We will continue to vigorously advance our claims that Rambus has engaged in a variety of illegal activities designed to injure Micron," said Rod Lewis, Micron's Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel.

This trial phase involving certain conduct claims against Rambus is only one phase in a number of pending cases between Micron and Rambus. For example, in a December 2007 bench trial before Judge Robinson in Delaware, Micron presented evidence that Rambus destroyed evidence and engaged in litigation misconduct as part of its efforts to improperly extract licensing fees and damages from Micron. As a result of those wrongful actions, Micron has asked the Delaware court to dismiss Rambus' patent claims against Micron. A decision in that case is pending.