SUMMARY OF THE DECISION Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden
 of proof with respect all three of the violations alleged in the Complaint.
 First, the evidence at trial establishes that Complaint Counsel failed to
 prove the facts they alleged in the Complaint. Second, an analysis of the
 legal theories advanced by Complaint Counsel demonstrates that there is no
 legal basis for finding a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
 Commssion Act, either as based on other antitrust laws or solely as an unfair
 method of competition.
 Third, an application of the facts established at trial to the legal theories
 asserted leads to the conclusion that Complaint Counsel have failed to prove
 their case. The evidentiary record demonstrates that: (1) the EINJEDEC patent
 policy encouraged the early, voluntary disclosure of essential patents and
 Respondent did not violate this policy; (2) the case law upon which Complaint
 Counsel rely to impose antitrust liability is clearly distinguishable on the
 facts of this case; (3) Respondent s conduct did not amount to deception and
 did not violate any "extrinsic duties " such as a duty of good faith to
 disclose relevant patent information; (4) Respondent did not have any
 undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was a
 JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose; (5) amendments to broaden
 Respondent's patent applications while a member of JEDEC were not improper ,
 either as a matter of law or fact; (6) by having a legitimate business
 justification for its actions, Respondent did not engage in exclusionary
 conduct; (7) Respondent did not intentionally mislead JEDEC by knowingly
 violating a JEDEC disclosure rule; (8) there is no causal link between JEDEC
 standardization and Respondent's acquisition of monopoly power; (9) members
 of JEDEC did not rely on any alleged omission or misrepresentation by
 Respondent and, if they had, such reliance would not have been reasonable;
 (10) the challenged conduct did not result in anticompetitive effects, as
 Complaint Counsel did not demonstrate that there were viable alternatives to
 Respondent's superior technologies; (11) the challenged conduct did not
 result in anti competitive effects as the challenged conduct did not result
 in higher prices to consumers; and (12) JEDEC is not locked in to using
 Respondent's technologies in its current standardization efforts. For these
 reasons, Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden to establish
 liability for the violations alleged. Accordingly, the Complaint is
 DISMISSED.


SUMMARY OF LIABILITY For the above stated reasons, Complaint
 Counsel, the party with the burden of proof, have failed to establish the
 elements necessary for finding liability on Counts , II and III of the
 Complaint. A review of the three violations alleged in the Complaint shows
 that although Respondent is in possession of monopoly power in the relevant
 markets, Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent engaged
 in a pattern of exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct which subverted an open
 standards process, or that Respondent utilized such conduct to capture an
 unlawfl monopoly in the technology-related markets. Analyzing the challenged
 conduct under established principles of economics and antitrust law and
 utilizing the preponderance of evidence standard, Complaint Counsel have not
 proven the elements necessary to support a finding ofliability.


SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof 1. Pursuant to
 Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 US. c. ~ 45, the Commssion has jurisdiction over
 the subject matter of this proceeding and over Respondent, Rambus Inc. 2.
 Respondent is organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of
 the laws of the state of Delaware, with its offce and principal place of
 business located at 4440 EI Camino Road Real, Los Altos, California 94022. 3.
 Respondent is a corporation, as "corporation" is defined in Section 4 of the
 Federal Trade Commssion Act, 15 US. c. ~ 44. 329 4. Respondent' s acts and
 practices, including the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint, are in
 or afect commerce as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade
 Commssion Act, 15 US. C. ~ 44. 5. Pursuant to ~ 3. 43 (a) of the Federal
 Trade Commssion s Rules of Practice, Complaint Counsel bear the burden of
 proof of establishing each element of the violations alleged in the Complaint
 by a preponderance of the evidence. The Relevant Markets and Monopoly Power
 6. The relevant geographic market for purposes of determning the possession
 of monopoly power in this case is the world. 7. The relevant product markets
 at issue in this proceeding involve technologies that are incorporated in
 DRAs for use in current and recent generation personal computers and other
 electronic memory devices. Each market consists of a type of technology that
 addresses a specific aspect of memory design and operation. The four relevant
 product markets are: (1) the latency technology market; (2) the burst length
 technology market; (3) the data acceleration technology market; and (4) the
 clock synchronization technology market. In addition, there is a cluster
 market of synchronous DRA technologies. 8. Complaint Counsel have
 demonstrated that Respondent has acquired monopoly power in the relevant
 markets. However, Complaint Counsel have not demonstrated that Respondent's
 acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power was unlawfl. No Pattern of
 Anticompetitive Acts and Practices 9. Complaint Counsel have failed to
 demonstrate that Respondent s challenged conduct amounted to a pattern of
 anticompetitive acts and practices. 330 10. Complaint Counsel' s legal
 theory, i. , that Respondent's challenged conduct violated Section 5 of the
 Federal Trade Commssion Act, which proscribes "unfair methods of competition
 " lacks a reasonable basis in law. 11. Complaint Counsel have failed to
 demonstrate that the duties upon which they base their challenge are clear
 and unambiguous. 12. The evidence presented at trial does not provide a
 factual basis for finding a pattern of anticompetitive acts and practices.
 13. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that amendments to broaden
 patent applications are improper, either under patent law or EIA/JEDEC rules.
 No Exclusionary Conduct 14. Respondent has demonstrated that there were
 legitimate business justifications for the conduct challenged by Complaint
 Counsel. Maintaining the confdentiality of the proprietary information
 contained in its patent applications clearly related to a legitimate and
 normal business purpose and thus precludes a finding of exclusionary conduct
 in this case. 15. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that mere
 participation in a standard setting organization, without more, can form the
 basis for excluding a member s legitimate right to protect its trade secrets
 from disclosure. 16. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that
 Respondent engaged in exclusionary conduct for reasons extrinsic to the
 antitrust laws. No Intent 17. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate
 that Respondent intended to mislead or 331 deceive JEDEC. 18. Complaint
 Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent s challenged conduct rises
 to a level where intent can be inferred. 19. Evidence in the record indicates
 that Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that the intent element has
 been met. No Causation 20. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate a
 causal link between JEDEC standardization and Respondent s acquisition of
 monopoly power. 21. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that
 Respondent acquired monopoly power by virtue of JEDEC standard setting. 22.
 The evidence demonstrates that Respondent acquired monopoly power as a result
 of its superior technology and Intel' s choice ofRambus s technology. 23. To
 the extent that Complaint Counsel' s Section 5 cause of action is based upon
 a breach of duty to disclose under JEDEC's rules , Complaint Counsel have
 failed to demonstrate that Respondent's omissions or misrepresentations were
 relied upon by JEDEC or that such reliance was reasonable. No Anticompetitive
 Effects 24. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that there were
 viable alternatives to Respondent' s technologies. 25. Complaint Counsel' s
 economic expert failed to demonstrate that "equal or superior 332
 alternatives were excluded by Respondent' s challenged conduct. 26. Under the
 economic theory of "revealed preference " the evidence demonstrates that even
 if Respondent had made the additional disclosures alleged to have been
 required, rational manufacturers and a rational JEDEC would have selected
 Respondent' s technologies because the proposed alternatives were inferior.
 27. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent's
 challenged conduct resulted in higher prices to the consumer. 28. The
 evidence indicates that Respondent's royalty rates are reasonable. 29. The
 evidence indicates that Respondent's royalty rates are nondiscriminatory.
 JEDEC Is Not Locked In To Respondent' s Technologies 30. The evidence
 indicates that DRA manufacturers were not locked in to using Respondent' s
 technologies at any point from 1990 to the present. 31. JEDECs continued
 use of Respondent' s technologies is due to the fact that Rambus
 technologies are superior in cost/performance terms to any alternatives,
 despite Rambus s royalty rates. 333 ORDER Accordingly, Complaint Counsel
 having failed to sustain its burden of establishing liability for the
 violations alleged, the Complaint is DISMISSED. Chief Administrative Law
 Judge February 23 , 2004 Washington, D. C. 334