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

 

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

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

It's a long document.  Can you tell us on which page you found that a retired judge cannot ever take on any consulting work with any company that is hired by anyone who had ever previously appeared in his court?

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/

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/

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.

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.

Why would they want him saying Apple's products are cool in the trial against Ericsson?

 

 

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.

Perhaps one of the reasons this retired judge felt comfortable taking on this consulting with the law firm is that the appeal process ended long ago:

Apple loses UK appeal, must state publicly that Samsung did not copy iPad

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/apple-loses-uk-appeal-must-state-publicly-that-samsung-did-not-copy-ipad/

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 :-)
 

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.

 

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. 

 

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

 

 

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

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.

 

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".

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

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)

Whoa! I thought this could only happen in mainland China%u2026.

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

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.

That was nice of him but it was still undeserved. The court contributed far more to the confusion surrounding the case than anyone else.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Enlighten us:  show us the proof you have that Samsung was able to get a favorable ruling in the UK because they bribed the judge.

 

Keep in mind that the outcome there with regard to the iPad was the same as the US outcome no one here has conspiracy theories about, in which the jury found no infringement with the tablet product.

 

Yet here you are, selectively working yourself into a frenzy over one court while ignoring another, and making all manner of potentially libelous claims for which you've offered no proof at all, nor even the slenderest shred of evidence.

 

Disappointing.

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.