# UK Judge Who Chastised Apple Over Samsung now taking Samsung shilling



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 28, 2013)

Well, this is a little iffy isn't it?



> A UK judge who was involved in a case in which Apple was ordered to publish a notice on its website saying that Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not copy the registered design for the iPad has been hired by Samsung as a patent expert in a separate legal battle with Ericsson, reports software patent blog _FOSS Patents_.


----------



## elbows (Feb 28, 2013)




----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

Iffy in what sense? Are you alleging corruption?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 28, 2013)

Oh come on, it's hardly as though Samsung hasn't got form in this area. I have no idea of the exact aspects of this case, but it's hardly outrageous given Samsung's past.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 28, 2013)

tarannau said:


> Oh come on, it's hardly as though Samsung hasn't got form in this area. I have no idea of the exact aspects of this case, but it's hardly outrageous given Samsung's past.


 
Blimey, not just your average arms dealing corporation are they?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 28, 2013)

<insert mock outrage here>

No company is whiter than white, but Samsung sure is a hard company to love.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 28, 2013)

shit hot netbooks though


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Feb 28, 2013)

tarannau said:


> No company is whiter than white,


 
Well quite.


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

tarannau said:


> Oh come on, it's hardly as though Samsung hasn't got form in this area. I have no idea of the exact aspects of this case, but it's hardly outrageous given Samsung's past.


So you have no point or relevant evidence of anything related to this supposedly 'iffy' story, but you thought you'd post up an unrelated story about South Korea anyway? Thanks for that.

If anyone finds any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing and illegal practices relating to this case, please be sure to post it up and I'll be happy to join in with the condemnation.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

A bit sleazy of the judge though if true, giving a favourable judgement and then taking the defendant/plaintiff's shilling? Might even be grounds for an appeal.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 28, 2013)

editor said:


> So you have no point or relevant evidence of anything related to this supposedly 'iffy' story, but you thought you'd post up an unrelated story about South Korea anyway? Thanks for that.
> 
> If anyone finds any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing and illegal practices relating to this case, please be sure to post it up and I'll be happy to join in with the condemnation.


 
I love the attempt to limit and close off debate. I would say a well sourced article about Samsung's corrupt business practices is relevant to a thread about Samsung and possible corruption, but feel free to torturously limit any discussion to strictly arbitrary parameters made up on the spot. 

<insert dismissive, passive aggressive cobblers here. _Thanks for that_ too>


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

two sheds said:


> A bit sleazy of the judge though if true, giving a favourable judgement and then taking the defendant/plaintiff's shilling? Might even be grounds for an appeal.


How does that work then? He made his judgement and then retired as a judge. 


> Apparently an ex-judge who is invited to rule on a case involving a given party is not barred by existing UK rules (though this case here may spark a debate whether some reform is needed) from being hired by the same party in another litigation outside the UK
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9900334/Samsung-hires-judge-who-ruled-against-Apple.html


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

tarannau said:


> I love the attempt to limit and close off debate. I would say a well sourced article about Samsung's corrupt business practices is relevant to a thread about Samsung and possible to corruption, but feel free to torturously limit any discussion to strictly arbitrary parameters made up by you.
> 
> <insert dismissive, passive aggressive cobblers here. _Thanks for that_ too>


Are Samsung corrupt?

To some extent yes, like just about all big businesses. Is there anything corrupt about this particular case (you know, the one _the thread is about_)? Nothing that I can see, but if you've got some evidence, bring it on.


----------



## Firky (Feb 28, 2013)

Samsung helped abduct Maddie.


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

firky said:


> Samsung helped abduct Maddie.


It was a Samsung holographic plane on 9/11 too.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 28, 2013)

No, not all businesses even approach the level of corruption on the scale of Samsung. That's more than a little disingenuous.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

editor said:


> How does that work then? He made his judgement and then retired as a judge.


 
Well I'd agree with people saying that some reform is needed. If this becomes the rule then judges will be able to retire off the back of a judgement in favour of Monsanto. It happens enough in politics shouldn't happen in courts too ffs.


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

tarannau said:


> No, not all businesses even approach the level of corruption on the scale of Samsung. That's more than a little disingenuous.


Oh, have you got a sliding scale of global corporate corruption to hand then? Please post it up as I'd love to see how they compare to other companies. I imagine they're bad boys but I'm thinking there's others far worse.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

...


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

Well I'd agree with people saying that some reform is needed. If this becomes the rule then judges will be able to retire off the back of a judgement in favour of Monsanto, for example. It happens enough in politics shouldn't happen in courts too ffs.

Eta. trying to edit the original but am crap


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Well I'd agree with people saying that some reform is needed. If this becomes the rule then judges will be able to retire off the back of a judgement in favour of Monsanto. It happens enough in politics shouldn't happen in courts too ffs.


Specifically, what do you think was dodgy about the ruling in the Samsung vs Apple case?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

That he worked for Samsung after giving a ruling in favour of the company. You don't think that's even slightly open to abuse?

This is a bit fucking different from holographic planes don't you think?


----------



## Firky (Feb 28, 2013)

tarannau said:


> No, not all businesses even approach the level of corruption on the scale of Samsung. That's more than a little disingenuous.


 
They are but ARM also makes chips that are installed in nukes. I think if there was a list of all the bad stuff multi-nationals get up to, we'd never eat, drink or buy anything again which wasn't hewn out of the ground by our own bare hands. Not saying it is right but it is pretty much unavoidable.

I try and do my bit, most people do, but it's really a piss in an ocean isn't it? I am not going to save the planet with my bag for life so I don't feel guilty if I ask for a couple of carrier bags in the shop.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 28, 2013)

Shouldn't this be in politics and protest rather than technology?


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

two sheds said:


> That he worked for Samsung after giving a ruling in favour of the company. You don't think that's even slightly open to abuse?


Only if there are grounds to suspect that the judgement was unsound. What are those grounds (apart from Apple not winning)?


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

firky said:


> They are but ARM also makes chips that are installed in nukes. I think if there was a list of all the bad stuff multi-nationals get up to, we'd never eat, drink or buy anything again which wasn't hewn out of the ground by our own bare hands. Not saying it is right but it is pretty much unavoidable.
> 
> I try and do my bit, most people do, but it's really a piss in an ocean isn't it? I am not going to save the planet with my bag for life so I don't feel guilty if I ask for a couple of carrier bags in the shop.


Indeed.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

editor said:


> Only if there are grounds to suspect that the judgement was unsound. What are those grounds (apart from Apple not winning)?


 
No, judges should be above suspicion. It was also a fairly unusual decision as far as I know. 

You don't think it's even slightly open to abuse? If you lost a court case against someone who then went on to employ the judge you don't think you'd be even slightly miffed?

And it's still a bit fucking different from holographic planes.


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

two sheds said:


> You don't think it's even slightly open to abuse? If you lost a court case against someone who then went on to employ the judge you don't think you'd be even slightly miffed?


It could be open to abuse but I've yet to see a shred of evidence to support that suggestion.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

Fine that you're comfortable with it, I'm not.

But it's still a bit fucking different to holographic planes.


----------



## pesh (Feb 28, 2013)

editor said:


> It could be open to abuse but I've yet to see a shred of evidence to support that suggestion.


 
which means it wont happen. ever. said nobody. ever.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 28, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh, have you got a sliding scale of global corporate corruption to hand then? Please post it up as I'd love to see how they compare to other companies. I imagine they're bad boys but I'm thinking there's others far worse.


 
Let's put it another way, how many other consumer electronics companies can you name that are widely held to hold the careers of prosecutors in their hands and exert similar control of the legal and political professions in their home nation? Which companies do you think of 'far worse' by the way, particularly in similar sectors?


----------



## elbows (Feb 28, 2013)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The corporate situation in countries such as South Korea often resembles the sort of stuff that is mostly limited to dystopian fiction elsewhere. It may just be a different style and depth of corruption, but it's kind of hard to make direct comparisons without doing the history of that region a disservice.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2013)

Judge presiding over huge high profile case which goes to party X - and involves weird unprecedented judgement saying that party Y must publicly apologise to X for even suggesting they copied anything - is subsequently hired for a fat consultancy by party X.

Well that all looks above board. I'm sure it's a complete coincidence.


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Judge presiding over huge high profile case which goes to party X - and involves weird unprecedented judgement saying that party Y must publicly apologise to X for even suggesting they copied anything - is subsequently hired for a fat consultancy by party X.
> 
> Well that all looks above board. I'm sure it's a complete coincidence.


Without any evidence of misconduct, that's *exactly* what it is.

How did the decisions go for Apple in related cases elsewhere in Europe, by the way? I'd say that's an important factor here.


----------



## elbows (Feb 28, 2013)

In a blog that requires registration to read, the FT repeats the story. They mention that it has raised eyebrows in legal and technology circle, but the only raised eyebrows they reference in this article are those of the person who wrote the original article on the patent blog.

http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2013/02/former-judge-to-give-evidence-for-samsung/

They do have a response from Samsung and one their law firm:

Samsung:


> “Sir Robin Jacob is not a legal representative of Samsung Electronics. A highly reputed intellectual property expert and academic, Sir Robin has been contracted as an expert by a law firm that represents Samsung Electronics in its case against Ericsson.”


 
Their law firm for this case (Bristows):



> “There was nothing untoward about the approach – there was no approach when he was involved in the Apple dispute. He would have had no inkling or concept at the time that he was saying those things in relation to Apple that Samsung were remotely interested in talking to him.”


 
The fact he was one of three judges involved in the appeal also waters down the impact of this story for me but I shall keep an eye on it and see what he says in the Samsung-Ericcson case. The low regard many people round here normally have not just for the patent wars but entire aspects of the patent & broader IP system only increases the chance of double-standards being glimpsed on this thread.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

If this is acceptable then it would be acceptable for a judge to award EDF a few millions in damages in the upcoming 'No dash for gas' case, then retire and be paid for expert advice by EDF.

It's just too open to abuse.


----------



## elbows (Feb 28, 2013)

Given that vaguely related concepts such as regulatory capture failed to cause a complete shitstorm when they got an airing in the wake of the financial crisis, I dont exactly have high hopes for this one scoring big on the outrageometer. I think its expected, and people accept it in the same way they accept so much about our world these days - they dont like it, they would like it to change, but the opportunities for change seem rather crushed.At times this will mean that the cynicism and accusations actually go well beyond any wrongdoing in a particular case, but its still hard to argue that the cynicism doesnt come from well-founded roots. But on its own this cynicism can end up as part of the problem as much as the solution.


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2013)

two sheds said:


> If this is acceptable then it would be acceptable for a judge to award EDF a few millions in damages in the upcoming 'No dash for gas' case, then retire and be paid for expert advice by EDF.
> 
> It's just too open to abuse.


For sure, and that's something that should be looked at.

But that doesn't mean that the system has been abused_ in this specific instance_ just because some people didn't like the verdict in an earlier case.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 1, 2013)

tarannau said:


> Let's put it another way, how many other consumer electronics companies can you name that are widely held to hold the careers of prosecutors in their hands and exert similar control of the legal and political professions in their home nation? Which companies do you think of 'far worse' by the way, particularly in similar sectors?


Siemens spring to mind but, why stop at consumer electronics companies. The Industrial Military Complex is renowned for this stuff: BAE Systems, Raytheon, Northrop, Haliburton, Boeing... the list is endless. It's no surprise that in the name of "national interest", certain big players' dubious business ethics often trump the law and political policy.

Concerning the judge... To me, he seemed to have made a level headed ruling. It's understandable that Samsung would want such a person as a legal adviser.
I found the way the "Jury" case in the US Apple vs Samsung spat was set up, much more open to potential corruption (see Jury foreman's comments post trial). Finding evidence of corruption in any of these rulings would probably be harder to prove than any patent infringement accusations.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 1, 2013)

editor said:


> For sure, and that's something that should be looked at.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that the system has been abused_ in this specific instance_ just because some people didn't like the verdict in an earlier case.


 
Yes I agree, and I'm reasonably sure they made no advances to him before the case because that's not how they do things.

On the other hand, though, you could say the same thing where witnesses have been given thousands of pounds for their story by a newspaper (and not one of the parties to the case). That doesn't mean that the system had been abused _in that specific instance _but it is still quite rightly frowned on by judges. The mere fact of it happening throws doubt on their evidence.

If it's ok for Samsung then it's ok for the upcoming EDF case, but that would stink to high heaven. 

I really don't think this is cynicism, elbows, are judges really so hard up that they can't afford to turn down work from people who they've given a favourable ruling to?


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2013)

pocketscience said:


> Concerning the judge... To me, he seemed to have made a level headed ruling. It's understandable that Samsung would want such a person as a legal adviser.
> I found the way the "Jury" case in the US Apple vs Samsung spat was set up, much more open to potential corruption (see Jury foreman's comments post trial). Finding evidence of corruption in any of these rulings would probably be harder to prove than any patent infringement accusations.


Indeed.


----------



## eoin_k (Mar 2, 2013)

Proof isn't the only criteria here.  In the parlance it is about justice being seen to be done as well as being done.  Taking Samsungs shilling creates reasonable concerns that justice has not been done.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Mar 2, 2013)

I'm not too concerned about Samsungs actions in this case. Seems normal to hire someone who judges patent cases to be a patent expert. 

The judges taking up of the position seems a bit dodgy to me, though. How could he seem to be impartial after this?


----------

