Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Sides With Rambus Over FTC

Posted by kdawson on from the severely-undermine-and-jeopardize dept.

afabbro writes "The US Supreme Court rejected the FTC's bid to impose anti-trust penalties on Rambus. Without comment, they let stand an appeals court decision favoring Rambus. The FTC had found that Rambus undermined competition by getting secretly patented technology included in industry standards, but the Supremes evidently didn't agree."

5 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. The Supremes by Muad'Dave · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the Supremes didn't say "Stop [bundling secretly patented technology] in the Naaaame of Love"?

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  2. /sarcasm meter by MadRat · · Score: 1, Funny

    *beep* *beep* *beep* *BEEEEEEEP*

  3. Re:A Hard Lesson Learned by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's kind of like being retroactively billed for all the times you've slept with your ex-wife. IRL we call that divorce, but in business it's called fraud.

    Well, not like it's easy, but the trick is to find a wife who makes more money than you do. Then, you sue her. Hey, it works on celebrities. Unfortunately, Madonna doesn't return my letters :(

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Re:A Memory manufacturor by Blimey85 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know the term Rambus but what is this Slashdot that you speak of?

    --
    How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
  5. Re:A Hard Lesson Learned by cffrost · · Score: 2, Funny

    IRL we call that divorce, but in business it's called fraud.

    We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan