The closing argument he never got to make. I hope this piece gets the attention it deserves. John more plainly tells the story than any account I've seen.
"First, the FTC ought to follow the Justice Department’s lead and litigate antitrust issues in federal court from the outset — at least when market-altering remedies are at stake. Reliance on an independent fact-finder and federal court procedures would resolve many of the conflict-of-interest issues raised by the commission’s own review of administrative proceedings. It also might lead to better FTC scrutiny of its own cases, both before they are brought and along the way, when — as the facts develop — settlement may start to seem wise.
Second, the FTC ought to look hard at the extent to which it relies upon industry to help gather evidence and frame cases.
And last but not least, the FTC ought to weigh the timeliness of its enforcement efforts. Patents have a finite life, while technology moves quickly. Back-due royalties will not compensate Rambus for the six years during which the FTC placed a cloud over its intellectual property — thus, among other things, disadvantaging Rambus’ own memory designs in the market. Even an extension of the life of key patents (assuming current law allows that) will not make Rambus whole.
The FTC should heed the lessons of Rambus. Bring antitrust enforcement over standard-setting efforts with caution, lest the prosecution do more harm to competition and innovation than the alleged misdeeds. And whenever and wherever such cases are brought, find a way to resolve them much more quickly."