Rambus Wins Appeal of FTC Anti-Trust Ruling

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Rambus has won its appeal in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision said that it wasn't sufficient to prove that Rambus lied or harmed competitors; the FTC had to prove that it harmed consumers in order to fall under anti-trust law. This is, unfortunately, a very dangerous ruling in light of some of Microsoft's activities relating to OOXML because it raises the bar on the proof required to act against such behavior. However, the ruling in the Rambus case was merely vacated and remanded for further proceedings, not overturned. So, if the evidence warrants, the lower court might be able to decide that consumers were actually harmed by Rambus' conduct and rule against them. Alternatively, this ruling could be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, but the Supreme Court only grants a few of those per year."

This isn't a bad ruling at all

[moderatorrater]

As long as the burden of proof to show harm to consumers isn't too high, this should be relatively simple. Explain to a judge how the PC market grew and evolved into one where all parts are interchangeable and show the benefit that's had to the consumer. Then show how the actions that rambus took fragmented the market artificially, resulted in artificially high prices from rambus and set back the ram industry overall.

The ooxml case is a little harder, especially since it's so early in the game that you can't see all the blowback yet, but considering the fact that even MS Office isn't compliant with the standard, it should be fairly simple to show that it's hurt the standards industry as a whole.

The biggest downside is that this ruling encourages lying and backstabbing between competitors trying to work together to build good standards.

Scambust

[digitaldc]

----Judge Williams wrote that there wasn't sufficient evidence to claim that the standards organization would have gone with different technology. He also wrote that "deceit merely enabling a monopolist to charge higher prices than it otherwise could have charged ... would not in itself constitute monopolization."

Huh?

Re:Hurting the Competition

[Frosty Piss]

Hurting competition in and of itself hurts consumers.

"Hurting" the competition is a part of Capitalism, which is by definition competitive. There is always a winner and a loser in Capitalism.

The burden of proof is a big deal...

[Anonymous Coward]

> As long as the burden of proof to show harm to consumers isn't too high, this should be relatively simple.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Proving things like "harm to consumers" is VERY expensive and requires expert witnesses and studies to counter your opposition because it's so vague. Proving someone lied is a lot simpler and less expensive. Not to mention less of a matter of opinion.

As long as they can get away with lying to standards bodies to create or further a monopoly, though, I really don't like it. Suddenly, it changes the economic equation so that people can't challenge them unless it's too expensive not to. In other words, Microsoft may be able to use this as nearly a carte blanche to subvert standards bodies in its war on open standards.

Oh, I should also add an addendum to this story: it seems that this was decided by a three judge panel, so there's one more possibility for appeal, according to some Groklaw comments. They may be able to appeal and have all the judges decide. But this appeal might not be granted, either, so who knows? If any actual lawyer responds and tells us about the appeals route, listen to them, not me :) I'm only sure about the Supreme Court being able to overturn this ruling (if they deign to), and the lower court being able to hold Rambus accountable for other reasons.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property [eff.org]

Re:Hurting the Competition

[MozeeToby]

True, I guess what it comes down to is whether you are "hurting the compitition" or just "hurting competition"; as in the spirit of a fair and even playing field. In this case, Rambus was clearly trying to tilt the field in their favor.

Competition is a means not an end

[l2718]

Hurting competition in and of itself hurts consumers. I thought that was the whole idea behind antitrust laws in the first place.

Wrong. Actually, consumers benefit when they can get better goods or services at cheaper prices. Sometimes competition actually harms consumers. Here are two examples: first, due to economies of scale, sometimes when competitors merge prices actually go down. This is not to say every merger is good for the consumer, just that sometimes there's a downside to further competition. Secondly, consider a market where there is a high barrier to entry (power generation, or R&D intesive fields etc). In these cases the prospect of competition might actually deter companies from entering the market in the first place, leaving the consumer with zero options. In these cases a common solution is a government-assured monopoly (e.g. via exclusive licenses or patents). If you couldn't get patents then there would be a lot more competition for producing the inventions. But eliminating this particular form of competition can help the consumer. This is not to say everything should be patentable, just that you should weigh things from the point of view of the end (better results for the consumer) and not the means (more competition is usually better).

IANAL but...

[Philodoxx]

The decision said that it wasn't sufficient to prove that Rambus lied or harmed competitors; the FTC had to prove that it harmed consumers in order to fall under anti-trust law.

Isn't harming competitors harming customers? I mean less competition means more monopolies/duopolies, and that's never good for prices. I mean it's ok to screw over your competitor by offering a superior services/products and equal/better prices, but it's totally different to deceive a standards body so you can sue its members for patent infringement.