Hitachi’s March 2000 response was a counteraction to Rambus’s patent-infringement suit. Hitachi accused Rambus of using information gained through JEDEC standards meetings without required disclosure, then using patent claims and licensing demands to undermine competition in synchronous DRAM. Those were Hitachi’s allegations, not findings in the two companies’ case: they settled their dispute in June 2000.
What Hitachi alleged Rambus did
Rambus sued Hitachi on January 18, 2000, alleging infringement of chip-timing patents. On March 24, Hitachi filed a federal-court counteraction alleging Sherman Act violations, patent invalidity, and misuse of information Rambus had obtained through participation in JEDEC, the standards organization involved in defining synchronous-memory technologies.
Hitachi’s account linked participation in standards work to Rambus’s patent strategy: it alleged Rambus learned about proposed synchronous-memory standards at JEDEC meetings, then revised or prepared patent applications covering technology under discussion without making disclosures Hitachi said the rules required. The dispute therefore concerned both what Rambus knew and did during standard-setting and whether its patent claims were valid.
Why Hitachi invoked antitrust law
Hitachi argued that the issue went beyond whether particular chips infringed patents. It said Rambus’s licensing and litigation strategy could force chip companies to license additional technology and threaten to make Rambus technology the dominant—or sole—standard for synchronous DRAM. Hitachi’s brief warned: “If Rambus has its way, there will be no competition in the technology market for synchronous DRAM technology.”
#1 Best Overall
That was Hitachi’s competitive-effects theory: if nondisclosure helped shape a standard around technology later covered by Rambus patents, Rambus could gain leverage over companies that needed to comply with the standard. The counteraction asked the court to address that theory under the Sherman Antitrust Act as well as to invalidate or defeat Rambus’s patent claims. Hitachi also sought to transfer the case to Northern California.
What happened to the Hitachi–Rambus case
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 18, 2000 | Rambus sued Hitachi, alleging infringement of chip-timing patents. |
| March 24, 2000 | Hitachi filed its counteraction, asserting antitrust and patent-related claims and seeking transfer of the case. |
| June 23, 2000 | Hitachi announced that the companies had settled their legal dispute. |
The settlement ended the individual Hitachi–Rambus dispute. It does not establish, on its own, that Hitachi’s allegations were proved or that the court ruled on their merits.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
How the later FTC case fits—and why its stages matter
The Federal Trade Commission later pursued a related but separate matter concerning Rambus and JEDEC. On June 19, 2002, the FTC filed an administrative complaint alleging that Rambus deceived JEDEC and obtained anticompetitive advantages in SDRAM-related markets. The FTC’s concern, as expressed by Bureau of Competition Director Joseph J. Simons, was that standards participants should follow the process’s ground rules and participate in good faith.
The FTC proceedings did not move in a single, uncontested direction. In February 2004, an administrative law judge issued an initial decision dismissing the complaint, finding the alleged deception and antitrust theories unproved. In August 2006, the Commission announced a contrary finding that Rambus had unlawfully obtained monopoly power through concealment connected to JEDEC standards. The FTC’s February 2007 final-opinion release described allegations that Rambus withheld patent and application information during standards-setting. These were distinct procedural stages in the FTC matter, not a ruling in Hitachi’s settled lawsuit.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The key distinction is that Hitachi made allegations in its 2000 counteraction, while the FTC later examined related questions in its own administrative case. The companies’ settlement resolved their dispute without a merits judgment; the later FTC record had its own changing procedural findings.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
