or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › UK judge who said Apple lacked integrity hired by Samsung [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UK judge who said Apple lacked integrity hired by Samsung [u] - Page 2

post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I guess I'm a little surprised that a judge would be permitted to work as a legal consultant in an area that he may preside over. Or is he no longer a judge?

 

He is retired, although he was brought back just to do the Apple design patent case, since he's an expert in his field.

 

Retired judges in the US are also usually allowed to be paid consultants.

 

I was going to say that he probably should avoid consulting for Apple or Samsung, but then again, if he's done patent cases for decades, it would be pretty hard to avoid all the companies he ever adjudicated over.

 

If he is retired from the bench then this is not really a problem.  His rather bizarre judgements in that case notwithstanding, we have to assume that this is not a reflection of any previous allegiance.


Edited by muppetry - 2/28/13 at 11:59am
post #42 of 66

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naive

post #43 of 66

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:39pm
post #44 of 66
Samescum have form in this area, being found to have bribed judges and politicians in Korean previously. This judges bank accounts need to be made public if he wants us to think he had no contact with samescum prior to the ridiculous decision against Apple. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then samscum will bribe it, copy it, or threaten it. Don't believe me? Then read this. Hmmmm......
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/
post #45 of 66
I see people defending this very fishy circumstance. These are the same people who accused the foreman of the jury in the US Apple lawsuit win against samescum, of having a hidden agenda. Please explain how this doesn't even look remotely suspicious. If as a judge, I acquitted you of murder, then forcing the complainant to publish a public apology, then afterwards, end up in your employment, none of you would even scoff at this? If judge Lucy Kosh went on to work for Apple later this year, you would have no qualms or suspicion? Yeah, right. Read this then tell me samescum wouldn't attempt to buy off any judge.
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00 View Post

I see people defending this very fishy circumstance. These are the same people who accused the foreman of the jury in the US Apple lawsuit win against samescum, of having a hidden agenda. 
 

What's ironic about that type of argument, is that BOTH this judge and that jury foreman decided that Samsung's tablets did not infringe on Apple's tablets.

post #47 of 66
If this judge's rulings are still open for appeal, or if UK law allows Apple to appeal given this new information, then we might be in for some interesting tangles.

It certainly appears ethically suspect.
post #48 of 66
Why would they want him saying Apple's products are cool in the trial against Ericsson?
post #49 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Like it or not, what this shows is Samsung is hungry, it competes to win, and doesn't sit around wringing its hands.

 

Apple needs to learn a thing or two about hardball tactics. I am somewhat befuddled by how passive the company seems to be (and what a 'zero-personality' image it projects) under Cook.

 

G-A-P*, Apple!

 

 

 

*grow a.....

 

 

Unfortunately when a company adopts the attitude of do-anything-to-win the first person to be fucked over is the customer. That is the lesson of business from the last forty years. Apple has succeeded by being different.

 

I for one don't want to see them change.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #50 of 66

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:39pm
post #51 of 66

You guys are hilarious. The very thought of a world-class expert on IP serving as a consultant in a US procedure scares you shitless. Pricelless. Reality TV :-)
 

post #52 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha 
The very thought of a world-class expert on IP serving as a consultant in a US procedure scares you shitless.

The whole system surrounding intellectual property has demonstrated how farcical it is on so many occasions that it's highly unlikely that anybody round here would hold an expert in those matters in very high regard. The only thing people would be rightfully afraid of is a blatantly corrupt legal system that favours intellectual property thieves under the guise of justice.
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The whole system surrounding intellectual property has demonstrated how farcical it is on so many occasions that it's highly unlikely that anybody round here would hold an expert in those matters in very high regard. The only thing people would be rightfully afraid of is a blatantly corrupt legal system that favours intellectual property thieves under the guise of justice.

 

agreed and we have that latter situation here. There were three things that were deeply suspect about this judge's actions: 1) that he did not immediately notice the blatant copying of Samsung, when anyone presented with the evidence (given here many times now) could not fail to be struck, and appalled, by it; 2) that he made Apple post a dishonest statement saying that Samsung did not copy, something that was humiliating and almost unprecedented; 3) that so soon after the first two he is consulting for Samsung, which suggests that Samsung knew that such an offer would be favourably received, to say the least.

 

British justice has been inhaling entropy for many years now. This is a disgrace.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You mock but that's how it works when a senior member of a federal agency or military "retires" and ends up working for the contractor they were supposedly the watchdog for.  

 

It is an accepted manner of corruption since it is essentially impossible to prove and difficult or illegal to discourage (i.e. not allowing them to work in the industry ever again).

 

That's not necessarily an indicator of corruption, though.   If someone likes the field they're in, then they'll naturally gravitate towards companies they know and have interacted with... even if they used to watchdog them.  In return, those companies want them for their connections and experience.

 

For another example, think of the ex-IRS examiners who retire and go to work for the very businesses that they used to audit.   Why would those companies want them?  Obviously because of their experience in knowing what to watch out for. 

post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

Can anyone in the UK explain how this can possibly not be a conflict of interest for this ex-judge? Are there really no rules against future employment by parties that have come before your court?

 

NO... There are none in the us either....

 

 

Now if talks/Offers were made before the verdict, that would be a completely different story....

post #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

"Hired by Samsung"?  Makes for a good headline, I suppose, but as it turns out:

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/440579/20130228/apple-patent-apology-judge-hired-samsung-robin.htm

 

Just another day in the life of an Oracle consultant...

Read the attached document, which is genuine; it lists the said gentleman as "representing Samsung|".

 

However indirectly, the title statement rings true, and the entire arrangement has a slightly inappropriate and unwholesome whiff to it.

post #57 of 66
Quote:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

Can anyone in the UK explain how this can possibly not be a conflict of interest for this ex-judge? Are there really no rules against future employment by parties that have come before your court?

 

Originally Posted by sranger View Post
 

 

NO... There are none in the us either....

 

 

Now if talks/Offers were made before the verdict, that would be a completely different story....

 

What most objectors find unwholesome is not legality or otherwise, but the short length of time between the events they have connected: just 4 months between coming out of retirement to hand down a judgement, then returning to retirement and representing a beneficiary of said judgement.

 

It just smacks of a lack of decorum, especially when added to the sense of bizarre perversity of the original judge's ruling in favour of the ex-appellate judge's new "employers".

post #58 of 66

Apple's attorneys are going to have a field day with this.

post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Like it or not, what this shows is Samsung is hungry, it competes to win, and doesn't sit around wringing its hands.

Apple needs to learn a thing or two about hardball tactics. I am somewhat befuddled by how passive the company seems to be (and what a 'zero-personality' image it projects) under Cook.

G-A-P*, Apple!



*grow a.....

There is a big difference between hardball tactics are corporate espionage.

It's obviously not proven at this point as to whether the judge was paid off or made promises of financial gain to turn the case, however it's deffinitely worth investigating as Samsung has a documented history of these types of things (the were proven in court to have leaked classified apple information about semiconductors from their parts operation to their mobile operations; which is obviously highly illegal. They have also had many other similar allegations made from Nokia and other large tech companies)
post #60 of 66
Whoa! I thought this could only happen in mainland China%u2026.
post #61 of 66

Note that Sir Jacob was not the judge that originally ordered Apple to publicize the court ruling that cleared Samsung of infringing that old EU design registration.  It was Judge Birss who did that.

 

Instead, he was one of three High Court judges (Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin, and Sir Robin Jacob) who later ruled on Apple's appeal.

 

Anyone here silly enough to claim there was a conspiracy involving THREE High Court judges?

 

While all three judges did uphold Birss' major decisions, Sir Jacob gave Apple a couple of big breaks when he amended the publicity order, so that Apple only had to post a link on their web page instead of a giant notice, and also knocked the period down from one whole year to just one month:

 

  1.  As regards publicity on the Apple home web page, Mr Carr realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.

     

  2. As regards the period for which the link should appear, (...) I think it should be required for a month from the date the order of this Court is made. 

 

So it's no surprise that, after doing Apple a couple of favors (oh my, should we think he was paid off by Apple to do that?!) , he was not happy when Apple manipulated the simple notice he gave them to link to, and then continued to thumb their nose by later making the link disappear off the screen.

 

After all that, I think he was remarkably restrained. If this had happened in the US, someone at Apple would probably have been found in contempt of court orders. Dissing a judge is not a smart thing to do, no matter who you are.


Edited by KDarling - 3/1/13 at 5:49am
post #62 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling 
Anyone here silly enough to claim there was a conspiracy involving THREE High Court judges?

You mean 3 people in the same profession have never conspired to do anything before? By definition you need 2 people to have a conspiracy anyway so 3 isn't much of a stretch. I also love how people are inflating their importance by prepending "high court" and "expert" to their titles. Should we start saying that Sir Jonathan Ive, Knight Commander of the British Empire and expert industrial designer recognises when his work's been pilfered?

It's not essential for it to have been a conspiracy, they might have had lunch together or briefed each other on the case and just commented about Apple's arrogant attitude. They are human beings after all and lots of people have that opinion. It really takes a very weak form of conspiracy to take the actions they did. In anybody's eyes, their rulings were petty and malicious and totally out of order in the context of the case. Their ruling would be like the court asking a rape victim to hold up her underwear in a courtroom to try and discredit them. Oh wait, UK High Court judges actually do that:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2184457.stm

By all means side with the experts though and assume that they are infallible because they wear a fancy wig and a dress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling 
While all three judges did uphold Birss' major decisions, Sir Jacob gave Apple a couple of big breaks when he amended the publicity order, so that Apple only had to post a link on their web page instead of a giant notice, and also knocked the period down from one whole year to just one month.

That was nice of him but it was still undeserved. The court contributed far more to the confusion surrounding the case than anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling 
So it's no surprise that, after doing Apple a couple of favors (oh my, should we think he was paid off by Apple to do that?!) , he was not happy when Apple manipulated the simple notice he gave them to link to, and then continued to thumb their nose by later making the link disappear off the screen.

Apple was right to do that. It was an undeserved punishment and has never been justified by the court as to why they chose that route. At no point did they ever show any evidence that Apple confused the public about Samsung copying the iPad. They acted on their own instincts and not evidence, which is not how a court should make decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling 
Dissing a judge is not a smart thing to do, no matter who you are.

Rubbish, judges are people just like in any profession whether they are teachers, lawyers, presidents, monarchs, police etc. If they make stupid decisions you should have a right to disagree with their actions otherwise they just become a law unto themselves, like they demonstrated here. As soon as someone pays you for a service, there's an element of control on their part and that can easily conflict with ethical behaviour. Taking money from someone you helped win a case for just a few months earlier is unethical.
post #63 of 66
If this is a conflict of interest then so are the current jobs of the ex-UK Prime Minister, several US Presidents, the French ex-President...

I agree there should be rules. I disagree this should only be limited to Sir Robin.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #64 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You got it.

Lots of stupid hyperventilating here about the ethicality and such. Even if anyone has an issue of ethicality, it is him, not Samsung.

For one so knowledgeable about Apple Inc and the USA, from your numerous contributions here, you appear to be blissfully naive about Samsung's local and global "dealings" or, like me, you come from a nation-state where such unseemly conduct is par for the course.

Disappointing.
post #65 of 66

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/21/13 at 4:27pm
post #66 of 66

If Apple has issues with the professor giving expert testimony what's preventing them from objecting? Seems simple enough and certainly appropriate if they suspect he's been bribed.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › UK judge who said Apple lacked integrity hired by Samsung [u]