The problem is that that Judge was not the one making the ruling and he has worked and works as a consultant so being contracted as one by a law firm it is not a generous reward
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
UK Judge Who Chastised Apple Over Samsung 'Apology' Now Consulting as Patent Expert for Samsung
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem is that that Judge was not the one making the ruling and he has worked and works as a consultant so being contracted as one by a law firm it is not a generous reward
brave, brave Sir Robin
I can't help but think of this every time his name is mentioned!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFefppqEtE
I can't help but think of this every time his name is mentioned!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFefppqEtE
And how is this illegal amd unethical? I bet the majority in this thread who believe this is corruption, also believe the 911 conspires and all that tin foil hat bollocks.
This is the law in Britain we are talking about, if there was even a sign/hint of horruption the judge would have his whole career destroyed and his ass would be in jail.
This is simply a case were he had a lot of experience, and Samsung need that considering apple had become a patent troll.
----------
Actually this is more like macslander, considering most people on here are comiting slander against a person with zero evidence, in terms of law most people could be taken to court for this sort of accusations, considering the level of corruption people are talking about.
Makes me laugh people talking about the oppressing of gays, blacks etc yet it is perfectly fine to spread rumors, slander Etc and innocent guy you don't even know....in my opinion that is even worse
Agreed.
Further. Someone who wants to believe that this Judge was in Samsung's pocket (as if he were the only reigning judge on the trial) would also have to believe that Apple adhered to the original judgement - publishing an ad that was specified by the courts.
The second you admit that Apple did NOT follow the judgement as they were told to do - any conspiracy theory goes right out the window. Period.
Forget about ethics and everything else. The second you realize Apple didn't adhere to the courts order there's no conflict of interest or shady dealings.
the level of ignorance in this thread rivals that of YouTube comments
entertaining but honestly really sad
entertaining but honestly really sad
Oh. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning?
Sarcasm noted. But clearly you see the point. I imagine that most/all of the people who want to cry conspiracy are ones that don't believe Apple was in the wrong with their original ad. Once you remove that from the equation - there's simply no basis for believing the judge was involved with Samsung prior.
And while I personally might think it does at least raise an eyebrow - I don't see anything wrong with a former judge who is an expert in his field being later hired on an unrelated case.
The flip side is - after being hired by Samsung - I would expect that there wasn't a CHANCE he'd ever be involved with a trial where he had to be impartial to Samsung (ie - back as a judge).
judges are a common commodity
You've been able to buy judges for years.
So it's true that you can buy everything with money.
You've been able to buy judges for years.
No conspiracy theories here, just lack of class and integrity shown by the judge. I'm sure he was fully aware of the nature of the controversy he was involved in with the Apple / Samsung case and the fact he's prepared to take Samsung's money after that event really shows his judgement to be suspect.
Spare me the theatrics PLEASE. Now I really hope they publicly sully his reputation as best as possible.
Agreed. To be paid as a consultant for a client you previously made a ruling in favour of, even if you had no prior agreement to be compensated for making said ruling, at least gives the impression that you COULD HAVE received compensation for your decision. Just imagine the outcry if Judge Lance Ito had been hired as a legal consultant by O.J. Simpson for the civil trial the latter faced after being acquitted in the criminal trial over which Ito presided. Especially if Ito remained a sitting judge while doing paid work for a former defendant from his docket.
Sitting judges are well compensated. To retain their image of impartiality, they should be banned from accepting consulting offers while they remain sitting, and they should furthermore be unable to accept future offers of compensation from any parties over whose trials they previously presided. If sitting judges are not well enough compensated to avoid seeking outside sources of income that have the potential to compromise their impartiality, then they should be better compensated.
To me, this is more about the integrity of the justice system, and its appearance of impartiality (which is almost as important as whether or not it actually is impartial), than it is about the ethics of this one judge, as we are in no position to make a judgment on the latter.
And for those conspiracy theorists who believe that this story is just posted as click bait and to try to smear the reputation of this judge, you do realize that the headline could have read, "Judge Ruling In Samsung's Favour Receives Thousands in Compensation From Samsung". Now, obviously, that would have been a misleading headline, while the actual MacRumors headline merely points out the interesting coincidence and unfortunate optics of the situation.
And in truth, it is not posters on this thread, but Sir Robin Jacob himself who sullied his own reputation by accepting compensation from a plaintiff in whose favour he ruled, less than a year after making that ruling. This is again not a comment on the ruling itself, but on Jacob's poor judgment in the matter of taking on a job as a consultant for Samsung after making the ruling. He's a smart man, and I'm sure he would have known that people would make the connection between his previous ruling and his subsequent involvement with Samsung.
Last edited:
Perhaps it is because in the UK we have seen so many professionals lie, cheat, steal and commit crimes. The list of people caught red-handed includes the police, politicians, publishers, journalists, generals, bankers, CEO's, doctors, and judges (I am not saying anything about the particular judge that is the focus of this thread per se). The problem is that many professionals in the UK have their snouts in troughs reeking of conflict of interest and unmitigated greed, so the public have become sensitized to appearances of impropriety. In this case, the judge's actions could be interpreted plausibly as a conflict of interest, which at a minimum is bad judgment (from a ... judge).
I wonder how some people here would have reacted if Apple had hired the judge....
This judge has been a well respected IP expert for years.
Pretty hard for him to avoid every company he had ever ruled over.
This judge was retired. As an expert, he was brought back to sit on the appeals panel with two other judges, who agreed with his findings.
As you get older, you come to realize that if you like your field of work, you will run into the same folks and companies over and over again.
People who've been in the same field for years, often work for companies they previously had issues with. For example, think of IRS examiners who later consult for the very corporations they used to cause grief for with audits.
Companies want their expertise in order to avoid such situations in the future. This is true in many disciplines.
A judge makes a ruling in favor of Samsung. Shortly after goes to work for Samsung in some capacity as an expert. I don't know.
I can't help but think that collecting a paycheck from a company you ruled in favor of is a little strange. But I am a cynic.
A judge rules against Apple, Apple appeals and THREE different judges sides with Samsung but SOFTEN the original ruling. Months after that appeal, one of those THREE judges is contracted as consultant in ONE case.
A little different, but I'm still waiting any law that forbids than a retired judge can't work as a consultant for a company he ruled for or against