Re: John Danforth with Scathing FTC Assessment Published at Legal Times
While I certainly agree with Danforth's points, where the heck were these arguments from Rambus during the litigation? One reason for the status quo that Danforth doesn't acknowledge is that even antitrust defense lawyers are so tied to the system, there's little incentive for them to point out things like conflicts of interest.
Quick example: In another FTC case, there was direct evidence financially linking Muris (then chairman) to a company with an interest in the outcome of a Section 5 complaint that the FTC issued. Muris had worked for the company just before joining FTC, specifically to represent it in a matter where another organization was an adverse party. That organization was then the subject of a Section 5 complaint.
There was no doubt that a conflict of interest existed. All of the evidence was public. But Muris never recused himself, nor did the organization's counsel once raise the argument during the ALJ trial, the FTC appeal or the petition for review. (And counsel knew, since they were the ones who told *me* about the conflict.) Muris essentially took a bribe in plain view and nobody ever called him out on it. (Well, I did, but that's beside the point.)
Skip