August 2006

It’s a bad day when your client wants you to enforce a noncompete agreement against a $10/hour Russian immigrant with “a very limited command of English,” who sends most of her earnings back to her son and elderly parents in Russia, and who, after a year of at-will employment and with no further payment of consideration, was told that unless she signed the noncompete agreement she’d be fired the next day.

Nevertheless, that’s what the plaintiff’s lawyer faced in Zabota Community Center, Inc. v. Frolova.

Not surprisingly, Judge Allan van Gestel of the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session threw the book at the plaintiff in this case, denying the motion for every reason conceivable.

You can read the case here (pdf file).… Read the full article

Long-Awaited Rambus FTC Decision

by Lee Gesmer on August 2, 2006

Here is a link to the FTC decision, which is adverse to Rambus. More to come ….


Update: Andy Updegrove discusses the background of this case and the implications of the decision on

In what can only be called a stunning development in a high profile standards case, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unanimously reversed the earlier decision of one of its own Administrative Law Judges and ruled that semiconductor technology company Rambus, Inc. had “unlawfully monopolized the markets for four computer memory technologies that have been incorporated into industry standards for dynamic random access memory,” or DRAM. The FTC will deliberate further before announcing the penalties to be levied against Rambus.

continue . . . Read the full article