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
hi Oletros, do you make invent anything that I could take from you say it's mine then laugh about it with you?
I think I've addressed this "one vs. the other" point in general. Some of that applies to this specific case. The fact that nothing concrete can be known (as could be the case even when there is outright corruption) is why I don't comment on the specific case, but jumping onto Samsung's team four months later certainly is unseemly, for the reasons FOSS said.
Yup. Those are exactly the same as adjudicating on behalf of the public.
He was not working for Samsung at the time.
There is no evidence he was receiving money from Samsung at the time.
What's the issue here?
There is no evidence he was receiving money from Samsung at the time.
What's the issue here?
It was published because it is to do with Apple and it 'could' be evidence of corruption in the lawsuits which cost Apple a tonne of money in stolen IPs. Samsung has been found out to be corrupted before you know.
Yup. Those are exactly the same as adjudicating on behalf of the public.
You missed my sarcasm. Point is - it's just as ludicrous to accused any of the parties being mentioned of impropriety. They are all people who had a job. Left a job and started working for someone else. Again. Non story.
The issue is a bad taste in the mouth. It doesn't spell out corruption but it doesn't look good either. I bet it would be enough to spark an investigation further. Samsung has been found out to be corrupted before you know.
What else is funny (and I'm not going to go thread hunting). But I wonder if any of the posters in here were adamant that the Jury Foreman in the Apple V Samsung case couldn't possibly be biased based on the fact that his company was legally involved with Samsung SO many years ago but yet immediately believe this judge was in cahoots.
I think this report is obvious FUD, but I also think more than 3-4 months is needed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. (The judge's criticism of Apple was early November if I remember correctly. Not sure when he would have ended his involvement with the case.)
Fair enough. I'm not really arguing the point of whether or not a judge should or should not be allowed to be a consultant. But at least you responded to the point on timing. Let me throw it back to you. More than 3-4 months would be better? Do you have an idea of how much time should go by? Not being sarcastic. Because I think some people (my opinion) is that it would have to be years and years before some here would "let go" of the idea it was a "fix" so to speak.
MacRumor has 0 expertise in legal practices, this would only be news worthy if there 'is' evidence of corruption. Right now, just feels like tabloid news, might as well post that new progress in nano-technology might bring back Steve Jobs from the graves in the future.
Not as childish as Apple's statement.
I'm not saying this is not without merit but the ruling was still justified.
Explain how it's a conflict of interest. Is he presiding over any Samsung cases at the moment?
Last edited:
And my point was that that's dumbing things down just a smidge too far. Regulating businesses on behalf of the public then joining those businesses soon after is essentially different from switching from one business to another. In the latter, incentives are generally aligned -- an employee makes himself attractive to other companies by doing a good job for his current company. Where the incentives may not be perfectly aligned, there are often (depending on the jurisdiction) non-compete clauses. But the adversarial nature of the regulator and regulated means the incentives between present and future employers are often in competition.
I don't have a strong feeling on the timing. A year would seem reasonable to me. And I do think whether the judge made any publicly controversial ruling in the favor of a company that was considering employment with should be considered. (And I don't think the Apple ruling rises to that level at all.)
Read the article again. The case was with Seagate, not Samsung. The alleged conflict of interest was about the fact that Samsung (now, not at the time of the suit) has a strategic relationship with Seagate.
Missed the point again. It's cool - let's just drop this line of the conversation because we'll just wind up on some wacky tangent. Ok?
I have to admit, I just don't think that there's anything there. But in any case, I agree that continuing is probably futile.