Slashdot Mirror
Rambus Destroyed Evidence In Anti-trust Trial
Marasmus writes "CNN is reporting that memory-chip maker Rambus has been found guilty of destroying evidence which was 'critical' to the anti-trust case brought by the U.S. government. Interestingly, the Judge has denied the FTC's request to move on to the penalty phase of the trial. Destruction of evidence in an anti-trust case normally yields a forfeiture of trial, but Rambus 'will have the burden of proving its innocence" instead.'
The article doesn't explain what reasoning the judge gave for not switching right to the penalty phase, but requiring the less-onerous "proving their innoncence". This seems unusual.
From the article: "Rambus has maintained that its document destruction was part of the company's regular document retention policy."
So what exactly is their policy? Does the government regulate this, or do individual companies simply decide a policy? Anderson tried to use this as a defense as well, during the Enron scandal, if I remember correctly. A policy of "don't retain potentially incriminating documents" wouldn't surprise me, considering Rambus' alleged past behaviour. Are these policies about as useful as corporate codes of conduct that companies such as Nike have? If they don't already, should the FTC set down guidelines?
take your sig and shove it
Quality of article notwithstanding, the case is interesting because it touches pretty much every computer sold today since pretty much everything uses either DDR or RIMMs. Then there are the human factors like the skullduggery on the part of RAMBUS, their once "gonna take over the world" position, their "relationship" with Intel, etc, etc.
...The MS anti-trust and now RAMBUS (which I had no idea was anyone's 'darling')?
Has the government prosecutors lost their teeth or is this just fuel to the idea that this was an arrangement that was bought and paid for? This does not sound like justice to me... justice for all that follows the rules and all that? This is very disturbing.
So first they enter into a consortium, and don't show they have certain patents, and now they don't show evidence? I sense a pattern there, but I can't seem to find one for the judges decision.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Does anyone else think that maybe the US gov't is encouraging the big-name companies based in the US to play by a different set of rules in order to maintain market share? Note that Worldcom had tremendous overseas assets, as did Enron. Rambus had one of the largest market shares in its field and an original patent. Microsoft is still on 90(+)% of consumer computers worldwide, and AOL has not had to abide by its promises to open up the IM market under the rules established for the merger with Time-Warner. Granted, all the aforementioned companies are heavy political donators, but it seems that the US government of the last 25 years (since the Chrysler bailout in the late 70s) has encouraged a trust mentality among larger companies that allows them several get-out-of-jail-free cards as long as they stay profitable and maintain market share. I'd like to hear y'alls opinions/comments on this...
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
I think this decision has some broader implications which the people commenting have so far missed. This means there might be some legal requirement by other companies to keep information which may prove necessary for purposes not yet known.
For example, could it be argued that ISPs must keep complete logs of user traffic in the event of legal action taken against a user? Or that companies must retain versions of software builds for X years to prove they didn't "steal" intellectual property in building their system?
Granted, that is a big difference from keeping documents which were used in the process of conducting business (e.g. patents, SEC filings, shareholder meetings). Is this the first ruling of its kind? (I'm guessing no.) Any legal experts have any insight into where else this sort of ruling can be applied in a broader sense?
Let's see... there were THREE OR FOUR motions filed today against Rambus by the FTC... only ONE of them stuck.
John Danforth sez:
"All the court said was that two years before the investigation started, we weren't careful about preserving evidence, There is no destruction of evidence that has happened."
Rambus wasn't found GUILTY of anything. Just that the potential "evidence" may have been lost, and in absence of it, Rambus will have to find another way to defend themselves. Should be easy for their legal team.
The most important was the DEFAULT JUDGEMENT the FTC was seeking. Denied.
If you ask me, "Adverse assumptions" means "Presumed guilty", but that's another matter. Adverse does NOT mean *GUILTY AS CHARGED* as the sensationalistic slashdot article hints towards.
So let's see... how's Rambus doing these days with all this litigation?
Rambus sues infineon...
Infineon beats Rambus in court on SDRAM patents after judge payne is convinced by Infineon's lawyers to remove their only defense from being admissible as evidence of their claims defining a "bus" (covered by the Markman ruling, which was in Rambus' favor).
Court finds Rambus guilty of FRAUD on SDRAM because they have no evidence to support otherwise. Rambus couldn't define a bus according to how their own 1990 patent stated, so they're robbed.
The FTC files its case against Rambus based on this FRAUD VERDICT.
Infineon files motion to make this fraud ruling relevant to DDR so they don't have to pay royalties there either. Payne denies the request since Rambus wasn't part of JEDEC when DDR was being developed, much less ratified as a standard. Infineon tried to show that SDRAM and DDR are so similar that it should cover both, but the judge wasn't convinced based on the evidence they presented. Motion denied.
An appeal on the fraud verdict is filed and the CAFC gets the case. THEY CLEAR Rambus 100% based on the fact that Infineon was guilty of some tomfoolery of their own, and TWO OTHER COMPANIES DID THE SAME THING (IBM and HP) while in JEDEC, actively stating they WILL NOT reveal their patents that are relevant to SDRAM. They also bring up the fact that JEDEC's notetaking and policy making sucks, since their own policies were so broad they were unenforcable.
So now, you have Rambus.. a company not guilty of fraud, and free to sue.
The FTC all of a sudden changes their entire case around to shift towards "willful document destruction" as plan B. All of a sudden, a nebulous suspicion about a 180 person company (of which ONLY FOUR are lawyers, btw) comes to light, making them look like the "next Enron", causing their stock price to drop. EVEN THOUGH RAMBUS WON TODAY BY THWARTING THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THEY HAD: The default judgement.
So now, what's Rambus left with? Well, even if they DID shred documents, they can only hold it against 'em for SDRAM if they're found guilty. DDR has NOT been in dispute EVER except for the brief time Infineon tried to weasel their way out of it on the SDRAM ticket.
Rambus filed for a summary judgement on DDR, which is ALL they need to win this case. They have the CAFC on their side (WHICH HAS JURISDICTION over the ALJ), which says "Hey, we're not guilty of fraud, and a higher court than you said so."
There is NO WAY the FTC will get anything major out of this. If you ask me, it's frivolous and a waste of taxpayer dollars to even investigate.