1
In the matter of Rambus Inc., FTC Dkt. No. 9302 , Opinion of the Comm’n (Aug. 2, 2006),
available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/060802commissionopinion.pdf.
2
In the matter of Rambus Inc., FTC Dkt. No. 9302, Remedy Statement of Comm’r Pamela Jones
Harbour, Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part (Feb. 5, 2006), available at
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/070205harbourstmnt.pdf.
Page 1 of 23
I. INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon.  Thank you for your kind introduction, and for inviting me to participate
in this conference.  It is my pleasure to join you today.
I have served as an FTC Commissioner for almost four years now.  Throughout my term,
I have devoted a great deal of attention to issues at the intersection of intellectual property and
competition law.  The Commission’s unanimous Rambus liability decision,1 issued last August
under my authorship, is one particularly noteworthy example.
But I am not going to talk about standard-setting today.  I will leave that discussion to
tomorrow morning’s panelists – other than to put in a shameless plug, before a captive audience,
for my dissenting statement on remedy in Rambus.  The statement is available on the
Commission’s website.2
When I accepted this invitation, I was determined to talk about something a little off the
beaten path – something that would be thought-provoking for this highly skilled audience. 
I decided I would share what I have learned thus far about so-called “generic biologics” – also
known as “follow-on” biologics, or FOBs.  (As I will explain in a moment, the two terms are not
necessarily interchangeable, but for now I will use them that way.)  I believe you will be hearing
even more about generic biologics in the future.  And what you hear may have a lot of rhetoric
