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.
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....
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
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".
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!
[SIZE=9px]*grow a.....[/SIZE]
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)
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
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....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
"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.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
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
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".
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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted
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.