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
Be sure to contact ol' Robin and tell him what a right honorable disgrace and shill he is:
<Removed by moderator>
<Removed by moderator>
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep. He is a paid consultant for those companies.
You don't see a weeeee little bit of hypocrisy in your two statements that I quoted?
No, there is no hypocrisy, what Mueller does is not corruption or illegal, only what he is paid for, on the other hand, until proven guilty a judge has not done anything illegal
I'm not sure the difference is significant in any way.
What makes you think that he is a FORMER judge? Honest question.
seriously?
How does a judge not say to himself... "this puts into question every one of my decisions made as a judge."
How does a judge not say to himself... "this puts into question every one of my decisions made as a judge."
I think you have put the wrong link to the BBC article
I didn't link the already linked BBC article.
Here's another link;
Book claims Samsung most corrupt company in Asia
Considering the fact that he wasn't hired by Samsung, he has no need to question himself.
"retired from the Court of Appeal in March 2011" to become a professor, but under Section 9 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, ex-judges can still be invited to sit on the bench... "
Why is anyone surprised by this, its been reported in the UK that MP's earn thirteen times more than their MP's salary by having second jobs as consultants, company advisors etc.
Hows that for a conflict of interest but remember "they work for you".
Its not a mad tin foil hat conspiracy when I say this but.... big business and rich powerful individuals runs our country, as George Carlin says an election is there just to give you the illusion your in control.
Hows that for a conflict of interest but remember "they work for you".
Its not a mad tin foil hat conspiracy when I say this but.... big business and rich powerful individuals runs our country, as George Carlin says an election is there just to give you the illusion your in control.
Hold on....yet when Samsung was found guilty in the US it was justice? Hypocrisy....
You know any US judges from that trial that are now Apple's employees ? I don't.
So, it's okay to accuse Mueller of having his viewpoint influenced by a consultant position, but not Judge Jacobs. Huh.
How is being hired by Samsung's lawyers to testify on Samsung's behalf significantly different than being hired by Samsung to testify on Samsung's behalf in this context?
Not sure how I missed that when I reread the post after you made the claim!
How is being hired by Samsung's lawyers to testify on Samsung's behalf significantly different than being hired by Samsung to testify on Samsung's behalf in this context?
Not sure how I missed that when I reread the post after you made the claim!
I'll take a stab. For one - Samsung might not have instigated his hiring. It's very possible he was brought to the table by the lawfirm.
If so - then this whole idea that the judge was in Samsung's pocket and/or other silly nonsense is exactly what we've been calling it. Nonsense.
Perhaps a shade of gray - but an important one. It's entirely possible that Samsung directed the law firm to get this guy. It's also possible that Samsung wanted the best person for the job and the law firm vetted this guy to be "the one."
Also - I have no idea - is it possible that this law firm has worked with this judge before?
Last edited:
First, the judge was not influenced by any consultant position when he ruled with the other other two judges.
Second, being a paid blogger and write influenced by whom pays you it is not illegal, making a sentence influenced by being paid by one of the parties it is illegal.
Sure. But that's just circular reasoning. If you start with the assumption that Samsung did nothing wrong, than you arrive at the conclusion that Samsung did nothing wrong. And vice versa.
To be clear, I am not trying to throw any FUD at this situation. Jacobs role in the Apple decision was minor. He just happened to be the one quoted at calling out Apple for their mocking statement. I just don't think the fact that Samsung's lawyers hiring Jacobs is a significant difference in the facts from what was originally stated.
Sure. But that's just circular reasoning. If you start with the assumption that Samsung did nothing wrong, than you arrive at the conclusion that Samsung did nothing wrong. And vice versa.
To be clear, I am not trying to throw any FUD at this situation. Jacobs role in the Apple decision was minor. He just happened to be the one quoted at calling out Apple for their mocking statement. I just don't think the fact that Samsung's lawyers hiring Jacobs is a significant difference in the facts from what was originally stated.
Significant? No. That's why I said it's a shade of gray. But it does help if you're trying to debunk someone who's insistent that Samsung was in cahoots with the judge. Even if it's a small differential.
I agree that's probably true, but it's not an established fact.
Again, you are making the same hypocritical accusation. Where is your evidence that the views expressed in FOSSPatents are influenced by any payments from Microsoft and Oracle?
Why do you keep bringing up "illegal". I never said anything about legality. I simply think questioning one person's integrity without providing evidence, while mocking others for doing the same is hypocritical.
Do we have to go through all the post in FOSSPatents about Oracle or Gogole one by one and reading what Mueller has said. Do we have to recall posts like this https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1170327/ ?
The same moment you write a post about a lawsuit involving someone that pays you and you don't disclose that you're paid by one of the parts you lose any credibility.
And regarding legality, I don't give a **** if someone is biased, accusing someone of corruption like some people is doing here against that judge is what enerves me. Like the one talking about Judge Koh
Somehow, a post prior to any consultant relationship with Microsoft or Oracle is supposed to support your claim?
Again, you are making a baseless accusation. Yes, Mueller has a very biased point of view. Doesn't mean he was paid to take it.
Who are you talking about?
"Oracle notes that Mr. Mueller fully disclosed his relationship with Oracle in a blog posting dated April 18, 2012; that Oracle retained him after he had begun writing about this case; and that he was not retained to write about the case."
http://www.androidauthority.com/florian-mueller-oracle-paid-blogger-108754/
He has been working with Microsoft prior to that post. And according to him, the work was confidential so he can't say what he worked for.
Well, we diverge. He is paid to say that or he is paid because of what position has.
One person that doesn't discloses in every post that he is paid by the one that he is talking about.