In the Matter of Rambus, Inc. (FTC)

Motion By Respondent Rambus Inc. To Reopen Record To Admit Newly Obtained Evidence Rebutting Complaint Counsel's Proposed Findings And Undermining Complaint Counsel's Proposed Remedy.

. . . Rambus wants to show the Commission that Micron and Hynix executives lied in trial testimony before the Commission, that Complaint Counsel (CC) has based findings, taken positions and fashioned its desired remedy in reliance on these lies.

. . . The evidence that Rambus wishes to include in the record is about 250 pages of damning documents culled from the 1,000,000 pages Micron and Hynix produced for the US Department of Justice in the DOJ's investigation of price fixing.

. . . Subsequent to the Initial Decision (ID) from which CC has appealed, Hynix pled guilty to a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition and agreed to pay a $185,000,000 fine.

. . . Subsequent to the ID from which CC has appealed, Micron has admitted that the DOJ has evidence of price fixing by Micron employees.

. . . The subject documents have been designated as "Highly Confidential" (High C) by Micron and Hynix in the antitrust litigation that Rambus filed in San Francisco and are to remain undisclosed to third parties, including US government agencies, under the terms of a Protective Order agreed by the parties of the antitrust litigation.

. . . The judge in the antitrust case has ordered the parties to confer on the issue of the High C documents. If the issue is not resolved, the antitrust court will hear motions concerning the High C documents on October 31, 2005.

. . . The commission is authorized to reopen the record after oral argument where:

1) The party offering the evidence has acted with due diligence;

2) The supplemental evidence is relevant, probative and non-cumulative; and

3) The supplemental evidence can be admitted with undue prejudice to the other party.

All requirements are easily fulfilled.

Of particular note:

1) Rambus all but states that Micron's CEO lied in his testimony.

2) Rambus has evidence that shows the "DRAM manufacturers reached an agreement regarding the prices to charge Dell, in a successful effort to force Dell to drop RDRAM."

3) Rambus has evidence that shows the "manufacturers agreed to fix DDR prices below market levels in the short run, in order to block remaining competition from RDRAM."

4) Rambus has evidence that shows the manufacturers "were able to raise SDRAM and DDR SDRAM prices, in concert and through a carefully coordinated series of price increases, by hundreds of percent."

5) Rambus has evidence that the market manipulation occurred "at the very same time that the manufacturers in question were representing to the Commission and its staff that the DRAM market was characterized by fierce price competition."