Tag: Technology

To settle charges that its 2008 acquisition of three LandAmerica Financial, Inc. subsidiaries was anticompetitive, Fidelity National Financial, Inc. agree to sell several title plants and related assets in six geographic areas: 1) the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, consisting of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties; 2) Benton County, Oregon; 3) Jackson County, Oregon; 4) Marion County, Oregon; 5) Linn County, Oregon; and 6) the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area consisting of Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne counties.

The Commission filed an administrative complaint against Intel Corp., the world’s leading computer chip maker, charging that the company had illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly. The complaint alleged that Intel engaged in a course of conduct to shut out rivals’ competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In particular, the complaint alleged that Intel unlawfully maintained its monopoly in relevant central processing unit, or CPU, markets, and sought to acquire a second monopoly in the relevant graphics markets, using a variety of unfair methods of competition. In August of 2010, Intel agreed to a settlement containing provisions that would undo the effects of Intel's past conduct, and prohibiting Intel from suppressing competition in the future.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint on 5/7/2010 challenging The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation February 2009 acquisition of Quality Education Data (QED) and alleging that the deal hurt consumers by eliminating nearly all competition in the market for kindergarten through twelfth-grade educational marketing databases. The data sold by these companies is used to sell books, education materials, and other products to teachers and other educators nationwide. The combination of the two companies gave Dun & Bradstreet, through its subsidiary Market Data Retrieval (MDR), more than 90 percent of the market for K-12 educational marketing data. Dun & Bradstreet acquired QED from Scholastic, Inc. for about $29 million, which was below the threshold amount that would have required the companies to notify U.S. antitrust authorities before finalizing the deal.

Under terms of the order, Aspen agreed to divest Hypotech’s continuous process and batch process assets and Aspen’s operator training software and service business to a Commission-approved buyer to settle charges in the complaint and resolve the administrative proceedings. The Commission issued an administrative complaint on August 6, 2003 that challenged Aspen’s 2002 acquisition of Hyprotech, Ltd. alleging that the acquisition eliminated a significant competitor in the provision of process engineering simulation software for industry. According to the complaint, the acquisition has led to reduced innovation competition in six specific process engineering simulation software markets.

In September, 2008, the Commission challenged Reed Elsevier’s $4.1 billion proposed acquisition of ChoicePoint, which would have combined the two leading providers of electronic public record services provided to U.S. law enforcement customers. Public records services compile public and non-public records about individuals and businesses, including credit data, criminal, motor vehicle, property, and employment records, all used by law enforcement as an investigative tool in solving a wide variety of crimes. The transaction, as proposed, would have removed the intense rivalry that had lead to lower prices, product innovations, and improved services and support for law enforcement customers by eliminating the competition between Reed Elsevier’s LexisNexis product and ChoicePoint’s AutoTrackXP and CLEAR products. The Commission required divestiture of ChoicePoint’s product lines to Thomson Reuters Legal Inc. The Commission worked with the Attorneys General of eighteen states on this investigation.

The Commission filed an administrative complaint charging that between 1991 and 1996 Rambus, Inc. joined and participated in the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association (JEDEC), the leading standard-setting industry for computer memory. According to the complaint, while a member of JEDEC, Rambus observed standard-setting work involving technologies which Rambus believed were or could be covered by its patent applications, but failed to disclose this to JEDEC. In 1999 and 2000, after JEDEC had adopted industry-wide standards incorporating the technologies at issue and the industry had become locked in to the use of those technologies, Rambus sought to enforce its patents against companies producing JEDEC-compliant memory, and collected substantial royalties from several producers of DRAM (dynamic random access memory).

The administrative law judge dismissed all charges against Rambus, finding that Rambus’ conduct before the JEDEC standard-setting organization did not amount to deception and did not violate any extrinsic duties, such as a duty of good faith to disclose patents or patent applications. Upon review, the FTC issued an opinion concluding that Rambus unlawfully monopolized markets for four computer memory technologies that have been incorporated into industry standards DRAM chips. The Commission found that, through a course of deceptive conduct, Rambus was able to distort a critical standard-setting process and engage in an anticompetitive “hold up” of the computer memory industry. In a separate opinion on the appropriate remedy, the Commission barred Rambus from making misrepresentations or omissions to standard-setting organizations, and required Rambus to license its SDRAM and DDR SDRAM technology and setting limits to the royalty rates it can collect under the licensing agreements.Tp>

Rambus appealed the Commission’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and in April 2008, the appellate court set aside the Commissions final orders. The Supreme Court denied the Commission's Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and on May 14, 2009 the Commission formally dismissed the complaint.