Rambus Destroyed Evidence In Anti-trust Trial 170
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.'
They didn't destroy the documents... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They didn't destroy the documents... (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:They didn't destroy the documents... (Score:2, Funny)
I'm way OT, but I don't care (Score:2)
But it goes on to say this is not set in stone: "Of course if Black moves its Queen to d5, the pawn will capture her with alacrity!"
Re:I'm way OT, but I don't care (Score:1)
Alacrity - A cheerful readiness, willingness, or promptitude; joyous activity; briskness; sprightliness; as, the soldiers advanced with alacrity to meet the enemy.
Re:I'm way OT, but I don't care (Score:1)
Re:None of this matters. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:None of this matters. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They didn't destroy the documents... (Score:1)
Heh.. apparently someone thinks yer a $$$$$exyTroll :)
Why not penalty phase? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why not penalty phase? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know how hard it is to prove your innocence? Think about it - if someone accuses you of a crime you didn't commit, and you have to prove your innocence, can you? In most cases, not likely. That's why the usual standard in criminal cases is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
Of course, civil cases are different - then it's the "preponderance of the probabilities".
Niggling correction (Score:2)
Re:Niggling correction (Score:2)
That's how you prove a negative :-)
Re:Niggling correction (Score:2)
something which, really, is virtually impossible to do: how do you prove a negative ("I didn't do it!")?
The same way most defendants do it. They present an alibi. Preferably something along the lines of "I couldn't have done it, because at the time of the murder I was singing the national anthem at the Superbowl."
Re:Niggling correction (Score:2)
Sorry for the delayed response ;-)
Yes, but even this cannot categorically prove innocence; at best, it means the alleged perpetrator wasn't physically present at the time of the commission of the crime. This is obviously different from demonstrating innocence of a crime. It may well be that the circumstances of a crime make it exceedingly unlikely that the perpetrator was not present, but it doesn't make it impossible: for instance, he may have hired someone else to do the dirty work.
Re:Niggling correction (Score:1)
While "proving their innocence" ... (Score:2)
And summary judgement/straight to penalty is more harsh then a trial where they still might be able to prevail despite their actions.
Re:Why not penalty phase? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WOMD (Score:2)
And he seemed like such a nice man....
Re:Why not penalty phase? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dean G.
Re:Why not penalty phase? (Score:1)
Not quite. From the article:
Destruction of evidence in an anti-trust case normally yields a forfeiture of trial
I would think this is the harsher penalty. The judge is giving them an extra chance to avoid a guilty verdict.
Re:Why not penalty phase? (Score:2)
This isn't a penalty, it's still a trial. A penalty would involve fines, freezing of assets, confiscation of property, etc.
Do you know how hard it is to prove your innocence? Think about it - if someone accuses you of a crime you didn't commit, and you have to prove your innocence, can you? In most cases, not likely.
So does this make RAMBUS part of the "axis of evil(tm)"?
Re:Why not penalty phase? (Score:2)
Think about it - how many child molesters plead guilty, and plea bargain for a lighter sentence, rather than have all the sordid details dragged out in court, and then having a judge who has had to hear from the victims, and ends up pronouncing a harsher sentence?
Plus, who knows what other land mines will be uncovered during trial?
My prediction - they'll plead guilty instead of taking more risks, unless a guilty plea would force them into bankruptcy, or give one of their higher-ups some jail time.
Re:Why not penalty phase? (Score:2)
My prediction - they'll plead guilty instead of taking more risks, unless a guilty plea would force them into bankruptcy, or give one of their higher-ups some jail time.
Cant exactly be "guilty" since its a civil case, thus no one will be going to jail unless a seperate criminal case is filled.
But being aforded the opportunity to prove your innocence in this forum (read as: publicly raked over the coals) is kinda like your mom making you go cut the switch that she is about to beat your ass with.
Re:Why not penalty phase? (Score:2)
Sure ... "regular document retention policy" , but let's get rid of those "irregular documents."
Here's the thing - isn't obstruction of justice a crime. Or destroying evidence? The higher-ups at Enron, Adelphia, etc., are finding out the hard way that white-collar crime can bring criminal penalties.
Maybe criminal charges will be filed at some future date :-)
Re:Why not penalty phase? (Score:3, Informative)
So what is there document retention policy? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:2)
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well similar to you or I, they must retain documents that the IRS or SEC (ok not you or I relative to the SEC) would find "meaningful". Consider this, do you save your credit card statements, phone bills? If so, for how long. You typically don't need these things for "official" purposes (business use not withstanding). Would your shredding of these documents be construed as you eliminating potentially incriminating purchases or conversations. If you're not under investigation, then no. But if you are, then they could be. This is of course a VERY grey area, what is relevant to what situation? Definitely hard to nail down. Of course the govt could always enforce a "100% document retention policy"
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but that would be "anal-retentive."
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:2)
Here in the digital age, that's a serious possibility. You can fit a lot of 8" x 11" scans in JPG format of documents on a very cheap CD.
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:2)
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:2)
That's hardly a new question that comes up from using CD's. The same is true for paper.
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:1)
To periodically destroy documents relating to developments they patented and then sued others for infringing. It'd be cool if they could actually destroy those patents too :-)
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:3, Funny)
Retention policies are determined by companies (Score:5, Insightful)
HOWEVER, regardless of a company's retention policy, it is illegal to destroy documents related to a government investigation once the company is aware an investigation will occur or is likely to occur. This is what got Arther Anderson in trouble, they knew an investigation was coming and then destroyed documents. This is also why a written policy is important, and that it be strictly observed. That way in court it is easy to defend the statement we destroy all documents older than X months automatically. We did not destroy them because an investigation was coming.
Re:Retention policies are determined by companies (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are certain kinds of documents that must retained for the SEC or IRS, but beyond that you can normally have pretty much any policy you want. But if you destroy documents after you are notified that there is an investigation, that is a crime. In other words, when notified of an investigation you must immediately suspend document destruction.
will have the burden of proving its innocence
Some people are acting like this is some kind of huge gift. It's not. Normally they would be presumed innocent unless the government could prove their guilt. Now they are presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in that position!
Also note that the full quote is:
the company will have the burden of proving its innocence on some allegations
The article doesn't explain whether that means that they are now considered guilty on other allegations, or whether the evidence destroyed only relates to some of the allegations and so trial should proceed normally on other allegations. My guess is the latter.
Re:So what is there document retention policy? (Score:2)
There are exceptions, however - destroying something after a lawsuit has been brought is a big one, tax records, SEC filings, etc are others. If Rambus is shown to have gotten rid of the paperwork in a non-standard manner after hearing about the lawsuit, they're in some pretty hot legal water. However if the steel company mentioned earlier got a subpoena for their 1872 steel sales, and pointed out that they only keep that kind of record for 15 years, no problem.
Not much to the article... (Score:3, Informative)
Some people say they illegally destroyed the documents, and Rambus said they legally destroyed the documents. Other than that, the article is useless.
Re:Not much to the article... (Score:2)
Rambus isn't as fast as PC3200 is it? My mobo from a year ago supports PC3200.
Re:Not much to the article... (Score:2, Insightful)
It shifts them to presumed guilty, which sucks for them.
Re:Not much to the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rambus says they legally destroyed the documents, a Judge says they illegally destroyed the documents. Rambus is useless.
:-)
Rambus's fault on the patent? (Score:1)
My favorite line (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm, I wonder if Enron could get away with saying the same thing at trial. "I'm sorry, your honor, but we always destroy our evidence, it's our normal business practice."
Re:My favorite line (Score:2)
Businesses are required by law to maintain certain documents, eg tax records. If your employer fails to supply you with a W2 or other record of how much your salary was in the previous year, they can't simply claim "It's our normal business practice not to keep payroll documentation."
Re:My favorite line (Score:1)
This really makes me wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:This really makes me wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This really makes me wonder... (Score:1)
Has the government prosecutors lost their teeth...
Umm, you are aware of who is in the Whitehouse now, aren't you?
Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising (Score:2)
American business has been sleazy and unethical for quite some time, but now it's spread to the largest companies and become too great to ignore. But with a "business-friendly" administration that will do as little as possible to hold corporate officers accountable for their actions and maintain an SEC that enforces above-board behavior, I don't see the situation changing at all in the near future.
Even worse, now I'm reading about Bush's faith and "God talk". What the hell is his god telling him? That greed is good, and people who exploit others should be supported? I've heard some strange stuff from religious people, but nothing like this.
Re:Not surprising (Score:1)
The medieval Vatican could probably teach the White House a thing or two, they also had experience of operating in the Middle East.
Re:Not surprising (Score:2)
This doesn't mean I don't think those people are pigs and deserve to be thrown in the poorhouse, just that Americans aren't the only sleaze-bags in the world.
pattern recognition (Score:5, Interesting)
RAMBUS files for new patent .... (Score:5, Funny)
"editing with Microsoft Word"? (Score:3, Funny)
Unless you were Ellen Feiss and you were writing a paper on your dad's PC and it goes berzerk and the paper just disappears. And then you have to write it over again and it's not as good.
Mistakes happen (Score:1, Funny)
Tom
Yeah, this is what I said before... (Score:3, Funny)
In other words... (Score:2)
== "sponsor" a few more senators to help smooth things out... Funny how incredibly rich corporations are treated slightly differently to normal people, huh?
Re:In other words... (Score:2)
Are you suggesting Congress is going to pass retroactive legislation that will make Rambus' actions legal?
Re:In other words... (Score:2)
Re:In other words... (Score:1)
And which parties are you saying may press whom? Senators pressing judges? Yeah, judges love it when the legislature tells them how to do their jobs.
Re:In other words... (Score:1)
Oh enough antiPatriotic bs, off to guantanamo w/ you.
sad (Score:2)
its sad to me that there's a standard procedure for this kind of violation, though after the last couple of years, not at all surprising.
How to read that pretty graph (Score:5, Insightful)
The very first thing you do is to look at the numbers on the axes of the graph. The vertical axis of the graph is price of one stock share in dollars, but the graph goes from $15.43 down to $13.86, so that steep drop-off wasn't as steep as the graph makes it look. If you plot the same numbers on a graph that goes from $16 down to $0, it's not nearly as dramatic. The stock price fell by about 10.6%, while the graph makes it look more like 100%.
To learn more about tricky graphs and other misleading charts, read How to Lie with Statistics [powells.com], a truly great and fun book.
steveha
Re:How to read that pretty graph (Score:1)
1) Big Gain
2) Big Loss
3) Early gain followed by a retreat
4) Early decline and then recovery
Always a news-worthy day based on the chart because it covers the full range - never mind that we scaled it that way on purpose.
Re:How to read that pretty graph (Score:2, Informative)
A New Age of Trusts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:1, Interesting)
Rambus' biggest stumbling block is the #2 manufacturer of SDRAM - the company none other than the hugely unprofitable Micron (MU).
At least ONE person [congress.org] got through to Miss You-Know-Who.
There's no way the FTC can win this case. All document shredding aside, the worst that can happen to Rambus is their loss of rights to SDRAM. Since RMBS wasn't part of JEDEC in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM for DDR, they'll be granted their own summary judgement dismissing charges of monopolistic practices on that technology.
Infineon tried getting Judge Payne to extend Rambus' fraud allegation to DDR, and he refused because Rambus wasn't a PART of JEDEC when they developed DDR.
The CAFC in turn reversed the ENTIRE rambus conviction in Rambus' favor and gave them the right to sue again, now on their OWN terms (reinstated markman, etc).
There's no way Rambus can lose this one, folks. The most they'll get is a slap on the wrist and maybe stripped rights for SDRAM. And let's face it - SDRAM isn't even RELEVANT anymore.
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets face it people, a train isn't glamerous technology, but it is a lot cheaper to keep running per mile than any other transportation technology out there. If you go to India or China, you don't see interstates or large fancy airports outside of the main cities. You do have rail going to any place with a post office, though.
In my opinion, the only reason cars, gas, and air travel is so important in this country has everything to do with bad habits and short thinking. The stock guy on the radio said it best the other day with the quote: "... of course that was back when long term meant years, not minutes or hours ... "
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:1)
Trains can be glamerous technology. Japan and France being the obvious examples.
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:2)
Now, a bit off-topic... I wouldn't ride a train in any case. I have literally dozens of friends who work, or have worked for a railroad at one time or another, and all will openly say that trains are the single most dangerous form of tranportation.
Not only is it easy to damage the tracks on which they run, but they are so heavy that they couldn't stop even if they were able to notice the damage.
There are surprisingly low standards for tracks, and the bridges they are layed upon.
There has always been a problem with engineers either being drunk, becomming disabled, or falling asleep, and causing serious accidents.
Then there's always the problem that your featherweight passenger train is sharing the same path (with very little room to spare) with mosterous freight trains so heavy, and having such inertia, that they have been known to bury the entire train in hard dirt and/or solid rock when they come off the rails. If a freight train and a passenger train were to collide, those aboard the freight train would likely feel no more than a slight bump as the passenger train turns into a huge metal pancake.
Trains are a good (read economical) way to transfer freight, but you are foolish (or consider you life less valuable than the cost to use another form of transportation) if you travel by train.
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:1)
As for your point about trains being the single most dangerous form of transport, think again. You'll probably find that a motorcycle is the most dangerous form of transport, and that driving a car is far more likely to get you killed than taking a train. I feel far more vulnerable overtaking 40 tonne lorries in my car than travelling on a high speed train.
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:2)
Well, I suppose if you look at the overall statistics, it might appear that way (that's the same way they try to prove the safety of airlines)... But for a fair comparison, you would need to compare ONLY the interstate car traffic with trains, since trains don't do the equivalent to city driving.
In addition, I'm not going to even grant that statistics are in favor of train travel. I would need to see the actual statistics first.
In addition, car crash statistics are just that... statistics. Just because hundreds of people driving in snow and ice (or driving on dangerous roads, etc.) get into accidents, it changes the statistics, but that doesn't change the fact that I will never even be injured in a car accident.
It's actually quite interesting, if you look at several generations of my family tree, you will see that none of thousands of my relatives have ever been in any actual accidents. They drive more than the majority of people, and are spread throughout the US, yet continue to defy statistics.
That's nice to know, but I don't feel the same. There is such a thing as defensive driving. If you can drive defensively, your life is not at the mercy of other drivers on the road, no matter how big their vehicle is.
Besides, I still find it hard to believe that cars could even statistically be safer. Two passenger trains callided at around 5MPH and about 5 people were killed. Trains are monsters, which is something people don't grasp (if they did, noone would even risk getting in a train's way). The inertia from the train in which you are riding is so great that a collision into the ground or another train wouldn't do more than scratch the train, but it would crush every person onboard. Forget about seatbelts, your body would be crushed by the weight of the inertia alone.
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:1)
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:2)
I would simply have to see some reputable statistics comparing interstate car travel (ie. NOT including city driving, since trains don't do anything equivalent) verses passenger trains to believe that claim.
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:2)
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:1)
Chrysler wasn't the first. Chrysler was bailed out because they had something like 500,000 employees at the time. The Democrats, who were at that point in control (Carter was president), were not about to send that many people -- mostly blue collar -- out of work, regardless of whether Chrysler deserved to die or not (and it did -- build quality at the time of Lee Iaccoca's arrival was so bad that dealers expected to substantively rebuild each car as it came in from the factory!).
Chrysler also wasn't the first large company to ask for bailout from the federal government.
But you may be happy to know that the Republicans gave Chrysler lots of shit afterwards. Even so, Chrysler did pay back the loan way early.
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:2)
Re:A New Age of Trusts? (Score:2)
Shady... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's seems obvious that they did wrong in adjusting their patents during and after the JEDEC process, without disclosing their patent knowledge or intents to the body at large. I can just hear the conversation: "Let's sit in on this standards body, write down their ideas, quielty patent them, wait for them to be implemented, hire lots of lawyers, and start suing everybody!!"
If they had been (or are) allowed to get away with their behavior in regards to that standards body, it undermines the ability of all companies to cooperatively design and create standards in good faith.
Re:Shady... (Score:1)
As there are two sides to any story, it is likely that you and I are both plenty well informed, though perhaps from differently biased sources. It is always interesting to hear from another perspective.
That being said, one inconsistency I see in your statements is this: If these companies knew exactly what Rambus had, why would each of them choose to base their manufacturing on that technology--knowing full well the possible consequences of their patent infringement? It seems an awfully big risk to bet your company's future on the hope that you'll be able to run a patent holder out of business.
You're correct to state that Rambus shared their ideas and insights (which were many, if I'm not mistaken) within JEDEC. What they didn't share was their intent to patent these ideas. Such disclosure would have changed the way their ideas were received among the other JEDEC members. Sharing information in an open forum, dedicated to the creation of standards, and neglecting to mention that you either have or will obtain a patent on that information is shady at best, and criminal at worst. That type of action discourages companies from participating in the cooperation required to create standards.
Add to this the fact that many of the patents in question were revised both during and after JEDEC, with some changes apparently covering the very things discussed in that arena. This suggests that Rambus further violated the good faith of JEDEC by patenting ideas they took from others in that forum.
Patent? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Patent? (Score:4, Funny)
Rambus Ink. doesn't make chips. (Score:3, Insightful)
Too paladium isn't around yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Palladium has an interest to not only corporate America but also microsoft since they can destroy any document at will and have the encrypted filesystem hide any evidence that it even existed. The doj can never bother them again.
Nothing says... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, well. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well, well. (Score:2)
Oh, right...corporate heads don't go to jail, they just find new jobs.
Broader Implications? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Rambosoft. (Score:2)
I apologise for the delay in making this intelligent post... When I attempted to post it, Slashdot said:
.By the time I add all this crap to the post, I'm sure that the aforementioned two minutes will have elapsed successfully.Three Words (Score:1, Flamebait)
I wish there was such a thing. I can only hope more municipalities will follow the lead of Porter Townhip [reclaimdemocracy.org].
Re:Three Words (Score:1)
spokesperson went on... (Score:3, Funny)
Rambus went on to explain that they had a standing policy to destroy all incriminating evidence when it comes to their attention. "It is part of our lawsuit-based business model and corporate culture," the spokesperson said.
RAM. loses data. BUSted. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What's The Big Deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's The Big Deal (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?q=rambus
Re:What's The Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:they (Score:1, Funny)
(Double Damn you 20 second rule)