07232003 Rapp 10020-10267 PUBLIC
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
10020 1 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 2 I N D E X (PUBLIC RECORD) 3 4 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 5 Rapp 10026 10232 10262 6 7 8 EXHIBITS FOR ID IN EVID 9 CX 10 ----- 11 RX 12 ----- 13 DX 14 Number 326 10081 15 Number 327 10081 16 Number 328 10100 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10021 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 3 4 In the Matter of: ) 5 Rambus, Inc. ) Docket No. 9302 6 ------------------------------) 7 8 9 Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10 9:31 a.m. 11 12 13 TRIAL VOLUME 48 14 PART 1 15 PUBLIC RECORD 16 17 BEFORE THE HONORABLE STEPHEN J. McGUIRE 18 Chief Administrative Law Judge 19 Federal Trade Commission 20 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 21 Washington, D.C. 22 23 24 25 Reported by: Josett F. Hall, RMR-CRR For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10022 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: 4 M. SEAN ROYALL, Attorney 5 GEOFFREY OLIVER, Attorney 6 JOHN C. WEBER, Attorney 7 Federal Trade Commission 8 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. 9 Washington, D.C. 20580-0000 10 (202) 326-3663 11 12 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 13 GREGORY P. STONE, Attorney 14 STEVEN M. PERRY, Attorney 15 PETER A. DETRE, Attorney 16 SEAN GATES, Attorney 17 Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 18 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor 19 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 20 (213) 683-9255 21 22 23 24 25 For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10023 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4 A. DOUGLAS MELAMED, Attorney 5 Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 6 2445 M Street, N.W. 7 Washington, D.C. 20037-1420 8 (202) 663-6090 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10024 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 - - - - - 3 JUDGE McGUIRE: This hearing is now in order. 4 Before we get started today, any housekeeping 5 tasks we need to take up? 6 MR. ROYALL: Your Honor, the only thing was 7 something that we raised yesterday. I don't know if 8 Mr. Stone is prepared to comment. I understand it's 9 not a major issue, but this revealed preference issue, 10 we can either deal with that now or later. 11 MR. STONE: I can respond. 12 I think although Professor McAfee did not use 13 the words "revealed preference," Mr. Royall is correct 14 on that, his testimony in the transcript on June 25, 15 which is volume 35, beginning at page 7255 and 16 continuing through 7256 does describe what I think I 17 understand and I think Dr. Rapp understands to be the 18 theory of revealed preference in his description of it 19 at that point in the testimony. 20 So I think that's my response. If I used the 21 words in asking my question and suggested he used those 22 words, I was plainly incorrect. I think the concept 23 was plainly revealed in the testimony. 24 JUDGE McGUIRE: Now, as I understand the issue, 25 you're opposed to that testimony being offered by For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10025 1 Dr. Rapp? 2 MR. ROYALL: You know, I think with this, with 3 that clarification on the record, it's probably fine. 4 The thing that I was concerned about and I'm 5 still concerned about, but I don't think we probably 6 need to do anything, is that it sounds like the 7 question that was asked and that was answered amounted 8 to Mr. Stone's interpretation of testimony and then an 9 agreement with his interpretation. 10 JUDGE McGUIRE: I think the point has been 11 made. I'm going to hear it and then I'll determine its 12 due weight. 13 MR. STONE: Thank you, Your Honor. 14 MR. ROYALL: I think that's fine. Thank you, 15 Your Honor. 16 JUDGE McGUIRE: Then at this time we'll 17 continue the cross-examination by complaint counsel. 18 Dr. Rapp, if you'll have a seat, please. I 19 caution you, you're still under oath from Tuesday. 20 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 21 - - - - - 22 23 24 25 For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10026 1 Whereupon -- 2 RICHARD T. RAPP 3 a witness, called for examination, having been 4 previously duly sworn, was examined and testified as 5 follows: 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued) 7 BY MR. ROYALL: 8 Q. Good morning, Dr. Rapp. 9 A. Good morning. 10 Q. I'd like to start with today, I'd like to come 11 back to one of the slides that you prepared in 12 connection with your direct examination, and it's the 13 slide that was marked as DX-305. 14 Do you recall this slide? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. I wanted to ask you about the last bullet point 17 on this slide where you say, "'Standard' SDRAM sold in 18 the market today embodies Intel's specifications and 19 omits JEDEC elements." 20 Do you see that? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Can you name any specific or identify any 23 specific JEDEC elements that are omitted from standard 24 SDRAM sold in the market today? 25 A. No, not specifically. For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10027 1 Q. So what did you mean by this statement if you 2 can't identify any specific elements that are omitted? 3 A. Could you ask your colleague to shrink that 4 quote back so that I can read the preceding paragraph. 5 Q. Can we magnify the slide for all of our benefit 6 just to see the text better. 7 A. Good. 8 Q. Great. 9 A. My understanding comes from Exhibit RX-2103-14, 10 and there was also testimony, as I recall, about this 11 subject, about the creation of PC -- of the PC100 12 specification. And it is that to which I'm referring 13 that involves the subtraction of JEDEC elements from 14 the -- from the Intel version of the standard. 15 Q. Well, beyond having that general understanding, 16 you don't -- you don't know of any specific JEDEC 17 elements that were omitted from the standard or that 18 are omitted in the standard but products that are sold 19 in the market today? 20 A. No. 21 Q. And you're not suggesting that any of the 22 Rambus technologies are omitted from the SDRAM products 23 that are sold in the market today -- 24 A. Certainly -- 25 Q. -- understanding that term "Rambus For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10028 1 technologies" as you defined it earlier? 2 A. Certainly not. 3 Q. And you don't know whether -- because you don't 4 know what is omitted, do you know -- do you know for a 5 fact if anything was omitted? 6 A. I know only what the testimony and this 7 statement say, which are both nonspecific, so I assume 8 that something was omitted because they say that 9 something was omitted, but what that something is I do 10 not know. 11 Q. And you say that you understand that there is 12 testimony about PC100 in the record? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you understand that PC100 included 15 programmable CAS latency and programmable burst 16 length? 17 A. Sure. 18 Q. And do you have an understanding as to why 19 Intel in setting the PC100 specification chose to 20 include programmable CAS latency and programmable burst 21 length? 22 A. I think there were two reasons. One reason 23 relates to the standard, that it was part of the JEDEC 24 standard, and I don't think that -- and I am 25 inferring -- it's an assumption on my part -- that For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10029 1 JEDEC (sic) did not want to disturb the standard except 2 insofar as the resolution of incompatibilities was 3 involved. 4 And I remember from the testimony that the 5 reason for the revision by Intel of the JEDEC 6 specification was that the specification -- that the 7 JEDEC standard was not specific enough to resolve 8 incompatibilities that arose in the manufacturing 9 process, and Intel's purpose, as I understand it, was 10 to resolve those incompatibilities, which it 11 accomplished by removing certain elements from the 12 standard. 13 If removing JEDEC technology would not 14 accomplish that, there's no reason, I infer, why Intel 15 would do it. 16 Q. I think, Dr. Rapp, I think you may have 17 misspoken in that answer. Let me point this out just 18 in case I'm right. 19 I think in your answer you said that it was 20 your assumption, assumption on your part, that JEDEC 21 did not want to disturb the standard except insofar 22 as -- you meant Intel? 23 A. I meant Intel. I'm sorry. 24 Q. Now, is it your understanding that Intel 25 included -- and let me focus this question just on For The Record, Inc. Waldorf, Maryland (301) 870-8025 10030 1 programmable CAS latency for the moment -- that Intel 2 included programmable CAS latency in the PC100 3 specification because it was already in the SDRAM 4 parts and had been previously balloted and approved by 5 JEDEC? 6 A.