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.'

4 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. They didn't destroy the documents... by wondafucka · · Score: 5, Funny

    they just kept them in memory...and turned the power off.

  2. Re:What's The Big Deal by gr8_phk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The only connection it has with "News For Nerds" is the fact that it is a Chip-Making company....

    And the fact that they went into JEDEC meetings to help define an open standard and then patented things being developed there. The RAMBUS saga is about abuse of the processes used to develop new standards. Rambus has yet to be properly dealt with for that, and that make an update on their case "News for Nerds" as much as anything.

  3. Re:Not much to the article... by gregbaker · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Not quite...

    Rambus says they legally destroyed the documents, a Judge says they illegally destroyed the documents. Rambus is useless.

    :-)

  4. A New Age of Trusts? by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.