Did you say it before? Link to your comment please.
I would lay even money you were talking about Colin Birss.
Are for being forced to stop claiming things that were found not to be true in a court of law. Seems fairly legit to me.
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
Did you say it before? Link to your comment please.
I would lay even money you were talking about Colin Birss.
Are for being forced to stop claiming things that were found not to be true in a court of law. Seems fairly legit to me.
Blatant conflict of interest. Inexcusable. It seems large chunks of the UK legal system are for sale, from police selling stories about ongoing cases to judges taking lucrative contracts from past defendants. Outrageous.
Hi - let me introduce you to an earlier post I wrote. You might have missed it.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16921429/
Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered... Those English REALLY set the bar high on Medieval punishments!!! Althose were usually reserved for high crimes like Diddling the King's chicks... Not for screwing over the public.
If it were the other way around and the judge made a favorable ruling for Apple, then was a consultant for Apple, it would be ok.
By the same judge, right?
If it were the other way around and the judge made a favorable ruling for Apple, then was a consultant for Apple, it would be ok.
That's a rather strange opinion of yours.
I think Samsung had four convictions for price fixing in 2012 alone.
I wish people just stop calling it slave labour, do they have the same rights as in the west, no but they are by no means slaves, just say for little pay.
China is also a lot cheaper and they don't need the pay we get in the west.
I get your point though.
Seems samesong has a new playmate in their filthy pool of unethical corruption.
YOU GOTTA READ THIS...,
Why is not the fact that Samsungs Chairman was convicted of felony fraud not mentioned by the press?
On January 14, 2008, Lee's home and office were raided by the Korean police for an ongoing probe into accusations that Samsung is responsible for a slush fund used to bribe influential prosecutors, judges, and political figures in South Korea.[17] On April 4, 2008 he denied allegations against him for his role in the Samsung Slush Funds scandal.[18] After the second round of questioning by the South Korean prosecutors which occurred on April 11, 2008, Lee was quoted by reporters saying "I am responsible for everything. I will assume full moral and legal responsibility. On July 16, 2008, The New York Times reported that the Seoul Central District Court found him guilty on charges of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Prosecutors requested that Lee be sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $347 million. The court fined him $109 million and sentenced him to 3 years suspended jail time. Lee has not responded to the verdict.
YOU GOTTA READ THIS...,
Why is not the fact that Samsungs Chairman was convicted of felony fraud not mentioned by the press?
On January 14, 2008, Lee's home and office were raided by the Korean police for an ongoing probe into accusations that Samsung is responsible for a slush fund used to bribe influential prosecutors, judges, and political figures in South Korea.[17] On April 4, 2008 he denied allegations against him for his role in the Samsung Slush Funds scandal.[18] After the second round of questioning by the South Korean prosecutors which occurred on April 11, 2008, Lee was quoted by reporters saying "I am responsible for everything. I will assume full moral and legal responsibility. On July 16, 2008, The New York Times reported that the Seoul Central District Court found him guilty on charges of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Prosecutors requested that Lee be sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $347 million. The court fined him $109 million and sentenced him to 3 years suspended jail time. Lee has not responded to the verdict.
Are you saying that the THREE other judges, including the one that made the ruling (and he was not Judge Jacob) are paid by Samsung?
Let's see: Judge adjudicates case. Judge acquits defendant. Judge humiliates plaintiff in spite of compliance with the ruling. Then judge acts as a consultant for the defendant, presumably for a fee. Admittedly the last part - whether or not the judge was paid - is conjecture, but the chain of events looks as though the judge was rewarded for his decision after the fact by Samsung. Seems like a blatant conflict of interest to me, for how could the judge now demonstrate that his ruling was impartial and not subject to the promise of a bribe after the case had concluded?
It makes me wonder how many of the jurors are now working for Samsung.... I kid, I kid. But only just.
Erm... So it is OK to accept what appears to be a delayed bribe?
No. But you are arguing that what walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is a chicken. I'll accept we don't know, but at a minimum I would expect a judge to have sufficient wisdom to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest. In my opinion, the judge has made a great mistake in this regard.
How does it appear to be a delayed bribe. And to who? You?
Again - there's absolutely not conflict of interest taking on this assignment. The new assignment has nothing to do with Apple. And the Judge wasn't the SOLE judge on the originally ruling. Perhaps the most outspoken one in the press - but he was one of THREE judges on the case.
And now you're accusing him of corruption?
----------
Actually, none of the three judges were responsible of the originally ruling
The problem is that the potential for judges to be hired later provides perverse incentives for judges ruling on cases earlier, even without an outright promise of compensation or even any coordination between the two parties.
Japan has long had a system where public sector employees retire into cushy private sector jobs, and it's widely seen as encouraging a much too cozy relationship between the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amakudari
I wonder what the current employment status of the other judges is.... I also wonder why Samsung needed to hire this particular judge. Surely they could have found other experts.
I suppose my concern is no so much about a particular judge, but about privileged professionals. In the UK we have seen criminality in police, politicians, bankers, and now accusations against judges. Just sayin'.
I am accusing him of poor judgment. As for corruption I am suspending judgment until we know more.
Robert Raphael Hayim "Robin" Jacob (born 26 April 1941), now styled The Rt Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob, was as Lord Justice Jacob a judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.[1]
His primary area of expertise is intellectual property rights. He was admitted to the IP Hall of Fame in 2006.[2]
He retired from the Court of Appeal in March 2011 (acknowledged in a valedictory address[3] before a court-room packed with well-wishers) to take up his current position as the Sir Hugh Laddie Chair in intellectual property at University College London. [4] However, in accordance with section 9 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, he has continued on occasion since that date to sit as a judge in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Sir Robin is currently a Door Tenant at 8 New Square Chambers. [5]
He wasn't working for or colluding with Samsung when he made that decision (I know this from a lawyer the judge was consulting with on this). And considering the Judges character, this may even help put Samsung on the straight and narrow.
So if you're a judge you're screwed and can never be a consultant? If you never know if a company will be looking to hire you, how can you have perverse incentives? That makes little logical sense to me. A judge will always be voting one way or the other based on whatever the facts are or interpreted to be against the law. So there will always be a winner or loser (unless it's thrown out). How does this fact make a judge subject to perverse incentives?
Glad to hear he is qualified. This has nothing to do with whether he is the best qualified or the only person qualified to act as an expert. I 'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you about whether this arrangement was appropriate - the appearance of a conflict of interest seems pretty clear to me.