Friday, November 17, 2006

IS RAMBUS BEING ASS RAPED BY THE FTC? YOU BE THE JUDGE!!

According to FTC protocol, an independent, impartial administrative law judge (ALJ) is appointed to investigate antitrust complaints and render “initial decisions”. The ALJ’s initial decisions are then reviewed by the FTC’s five commissioners who form and ratify “opinions”. The commission’s opinions can then be appealed at the federal court level. In Rambus’ case, ALJ Stephen J. McGuire conducted a two-year, exhaustive investigation and handed down one of the most comprehensive initial decisions in FTC history (330 pages) entirely in favor of Rambus. The ruling also added to the powerful ruling favoring Rambus that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued in January 2003, a ruling that was later supported by the U.S. Supreme Court.

My understanding is that the FTC commissioners cannot disregard the ALJ’s findings of fact, rationale, and conclusions; nor can they ignore volumes of evidence; nor can they invalidate the favorable rulings of the CAFC and the U.S. Supreme Court. This is why I believe the FTC’s wayward opinion has merely delayed the inevitable.

In a report pertaining to Rambus, Rick Currin, of CurrinResearch, commented “The thorough disregard for the ALJ decision creates a guaranteed problem for the [FTC] opinion if and when it is appealed to a federal court. The real problem with the opinion is that it reverses facts as well as credibility determinations made by the ALJ. While the Commission has demonstrated that it can basically do whatever it wants ignoring the findings and conclusions of the ALJ, courts (including the Supreme Court) disagree.”
Mr. Currin went on to describe how the FTC was recently reversed and rebuffed by the CAFC with regard to the agency’s complaint against Schering Plough. The CAFC was highly critical of the FTC for failing to apply ‘law\n or logic’. Substantial evidence requires a review of the entire record at trial, and that most certainly includes the ALJ’s credibility determinations and the overwhelming evidence that contradicts the Commission’s conclusion. 11th Circuit Reversing the FTC in the Schering Case Mr. Currin went on to say, “The FTC is perhaps even more reckless in [Rambus’] case, abandoning overwhelming evidence that contradicts the Commission’s conclusion . . . The recent decision in the Schering case . . . strongly suggests that Rambus would prevail in an appeal of the matter.” In like opinion, Skip Oliva, president of the Voluntary Trade Council, issued the following statement regarding the FTC’s opinion in the Rambus case.


Currin went on to describe how the FTC was recently reversed and rebuffed by the CAFC with regard to the agency’s complaint against Schering Plough. The CAFC was highly critical of the FTC for failing to apply ‘law or logic’.

Substantial evidence requires a review of the entire record at trial, and that most certainly includes the ALJ’s credibility determinations and the overwhelming evidence that contradicts the Commission’s conclusion.
11th Circuit Reversing the FTC in the Schering Case

Mr. Currin went on to say, “The FTC is perhaps even more reckless in [Rambus’] case, abandoning overwhelming evidence that contradicts the Commission’s conclusion . . . The recent decision in the Schering case . . . strongly suggests that Rambus would prevail in an appeal of the matter.”
In like opinion, Skip Oliva, president of the Voluntary Trade Council, issued the following statement regarding the FTC’s opinion in the Rambus case.

The FTC issued the original complaint four years ago, appointed the prosecutors, and spent millions in taxpayer dollars on the case. In recent years, the Commission has always upheld its own complaints even when, as here, an impartial administrative law judge found no evidence of an antitrust violation. When one agency is allowed to play prosecutor, judge, and jury, we are a nation of men and not laws. Rambus and its shareholders unfortunately learned that lesson today.After the remedy phase of the FTC proceedings is complete, I strongly urge Rambus management to appeal today’s decision to\n an appellate court of appropriate jurisdiction. Clearly, the FTC is a political agency that was hijacked to delay justice and provide negotiating leverage to Micron Technology and Hynix Semiconductor. Below you will see how far the tentacles of Micron and Hynix have reached into the upper echelon of the FTC. These erstwhile FTC officials are literally being employed by law firms representing the manufacturers who are attempting to expropriate\n Rambus of its patented innovations. This is irrefutably an egregious example of conflict of interest. Robert Petofsky, FTC Chairman, is now employed by Arnold & Porter, a law firm representing Micron Technology. ",1]

The FTC issued the original complaint four years ago, appointed the prosecutors, and spent millions in taxpayer dollars on the case. In recent years, the Commission has always upheld its own complaints even when, as here, an impartial administrative law judge found no evidence of an antitrust violation. When one agency is allowed to play prosecutor, judge, and jury, we are a nation of men and not laws. Rambus and its shareholders unfortunately learned that lesson today.After the remedy phase of the FTC proceedings is complete, I strongly urge Rambus management to appeal today’s decision to an appellate court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Clearly, the FTC is a political agency that was hijacked to delay justice and provide negotiating leverage to Micron Technology and Hynix Semiconductor. Below you will see how far the tentacles of Micron and Hynix have reached into the upper echelon of the FTC. These erstwhile FTC officials are literally being employed by law firms representing the manufacturers who are attempting to expropriate Rambus of its patented innovations. This is irrefutably an egregious example of conflict of interest.
NAME NAMES YOU GOAT SNIFFER!!!!


Robert Petofsky, FTC Chairman, is now employed by Arnold & Porter, a law firm representing Micron Technology.

Timothy Muris, FTC Chairman, is now employed by O’Melveny & Myers, a law firm representing Hynix\n Semiconductor.

William Baer, FTC Director for the Bureau of Competition, is now employed Arnold & Porter, a law firm representing Micron Technology.

Richard Parker, FTC Director of the Bureau of Competition, is now employed by O’Melveny & Myers, a law firm representing Hynix Semiconductor.

Sean Royall, FTC Deputy Director for the Bureau of Competition, is now employed by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, a law firm representing Micron Technology. ]

Timothy Muris, FTC Chairman, is now employed by O’Melveny & Myers, a law firm representing Hynix Semiconductor.

William Baer, FTC Director for the Bureau of Competition, is now employed Arnold & Porter, a law firm representing Micron Technology.

Richard Parker
, FTC Director of the Bureau of Competition, is now employed by O’Melveny & Myers, a law firm representing Hynix Semiconductor.

Sean Royall, FTC Deputy Director for the Bureau of Competition, is now employed by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, a law firm representing Micron Technology


This smells really really really bad. Like Nancy Pelosi's jockstrap!

Now, you see all these ex FTC fellows. Look who they work for. Look at what the FTC has done to Rambus.

Not up to me to tell you what is what but..............this does not pass the smell test.

Now also, just because these guys are working for firms representing the Anti Rambus crowd, does not mean that they are working on matters that are active against Rambus.

They might be right honorable fellows. You never know. All I am saying is that it just does not look right.


1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Look Right" ??? Doesn't even begin to "Smell" right.
Thank you, sincerely. "B.A."

8:30 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home