4 ms·

But the article doesn't say that he was taking "kickbacks", but that he was hired as a "consultant". Is that illegal? "We'd like to do business with Netflix, h

by tomp 5y ago

But the article doesn't say that he was taking "kickbacks", but that he was hired as a "consultant". Is that illegal? "We'd like to do business with Netflix, hmmm whom should we hire as a consultant, maybe someone at Netflix, surely knows a lot about the kinds of companies that do business with Netflix." Edit: I agree it's immoral just like how FDA leaders approving drugs then getting hired by the drug industry is immoral, but IIRC the problem is that that's just circumstantial evidence... it's hard to prove that what they did was illegal.

inetknght 5y ago
Maybe, instead of hiring a single person, you should hire Netflix itself. Netflix itself surely knows a lot about the kinds of companies that do business with Netflix. Let Netflix worry about compensating the people who are doing the work.
tptacek 5y ago
Yes, it obviously is illegal. He was just convicted of fraud.
simonh 5y ago
His jobs at Netflix is to get the best deal for Netflix, not to get the deal that nets him the most money from the vendor. The vendor paying him is increasing the costs to the vendor, therefore presumably increasing the costs they will pass on to Netflix. The problem there is the money comes first. In the case of former regulators, by the time they are hired by the drug company they're no longer a regulator. It's not clear the drug company has anything to gain from hiring them. Yes it's grubby, but it's hard to prove anything. If the money comes up front, that's easy to prove.
jacquesm 5y ago
The words you are looking for are 'conflict of interest'. If you are acting on behalf of a corporation and you have such a conflict of interest you are required to disclose it.
ncallaway 5y ago
If they're hiring as a consultant the procurement officer at Netflix that decides to grant them the contract (and Netflix doesn't know about/approve this arrangement), that seems _very_ transparently to be a kickback to me. > it's hard to prove that what they did was illegal. Sure, it's a lot of work. That's why we spend money on prosecutors. But they literally _just_ proved that in a way that convinced 12 people "beyond a reasonable doubt", so it's certainly not impossible. It just seems weird to be asking: "is the described scheme illegal?" in an article describing a conviction for the described behavior, unless you're questioning the validity of the judicial process in this case (which itself is a fine thing to do)

by tomp 5y ago

inetknght 5y ago

Maybe, instead of hiring a single person, you should hire Netflix itself. Netflix itself surely knows a lot about the kinds of companies that do business with Netflix. Let Netflix worry about compensating the people who are doing the work.

tptacek 5y ago

Yes, it obviously is illegal. He was just convicted of fraud.

simonh 5y ago

His jobs at Netflix is to get the best deal for Netflix, not to get the deal that nets him the most money from the vendor. The vendor paying him is increasing the costs to the vendor, therefore presumably increasing the costs they will pass on to Netflix. The problem there is the money comes first. In the case of former regulators, by the time they are hired by the drug company they're no longer a regulator. It's not clear the drug company has anything to gain from hiring them. Yes it's grubby, but it's hard to prove anything. If the money comes up front, that's easy to prove.

jacquesm 5y ago

The words you are looking for are 'conflict of interest'. If you are acting on behalf of a corporation and you have such a conflict of interest you are required to disclose it.

ncallaway 5y ago

If they're hiring as a consultant the procurement officer at Netflix that decides to grant them the contract (and Netflix doesn't know about/approve this arrangement), that seems _very_ transparently to be a kickback to me. > it's hard to prove that what they did was illegal. Sure, it's a lot of work. That's why we spend money on prosecutors. But they literally _just_ proved that in a way that convinced 12 people "beyond a reasonable doubt", so it's certainly not impossible. It just seems weird to be asking: "is the described scheme illegal?" in an article describing a conviction for the described behavior, unless you're questioning the validity of the judicial process in this case (which itself is a fine thing to do)