Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Pursues Rambus Appeal To Supreme Court

Posted by kdawson on from the acting-like-regulators dept.

pheede writes "SCOTUSblog brings us news that the FTC has appealed the recent circuit court decision regarding Rambus's deceptive conduct on the JEDEC standards committee, where they conveniently avoided telling anyone that they owned patents on the resulting standards. The FTC, which is proceeding on its own without help from the Justice Department, notes the circuit court's 'sweeping rules that would immunize' deceptive conduct by would-be monopolists 'in most circumstances.'"

3 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. Subject goes here by snowraver1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Using deception to gain higher prices, the Court said, normally does not have the tendency to shut out rivals.

    This quote near the end of the artice I find troubling. It almost sounds as though the court condones the use of deceptive practices.

    It's true that companies use deceptive practices (the iPhone article earlier, cell phone companies in general) and those companies are certianly thriving, I think that the courts should be smacking companies that use blatent deception.

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  2. Magnuson-Moss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Commission noted that this was the fourth time it had appealed a case to the Supreme Court without the U.S. Solicitor General... The agency said it has had that authority since he Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act went into effect in July 1975.

    I've heard of Magnuson-Moss mostly in the auto world, where it's known as the law that forcing manufacturers to cover warranty repairs on modified vehicles unless it can be shown that third party parts, modifications, or unintended usage contributed to the failure needing repair.

    This is an interesting use of Magnuson-Moss which, as far as I can tell from the Wikipedia article, comes from the section stating "Likewise, service contracts must fully, clearly, and conspicuously disclose their terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language." What a great law.

    1. Re:Magnuson-Moss by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      great law indeed. i'd never heard of Magnuson-Moss before, but i wish the conspicuous disclosure of terms and conditions provision were more generally applied to cover all business contracts and advertising. perhaps it'd mitigate "small print syndrome" and other deceptive business practices.

      maybe then instead of pouring millions of dollars into marketing/advertising and other manipulative business practices, companies will instead have to put that money into R&D to develop competitive products/technologies and succeed based purely on their technical merits (instead of, say, lobbying/bribing/tricking standard-setting bodies to adopt your proprietary technology as an industry standard).

      i mean, things like films, music, clothes, etc. are highly subjective, thus they inherently rely on promotional advertising/marketing to gain exposure, after which each work can be propelled on its own creative/aesthetic merits. however, technology should to be judged on its technical merits, not which company has the biggest marketing budget or the most lobbying power to buy their own industry standards.