×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Conflicted Judges Are Classier With English Accents

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the because-this-patent-fight-needed-more-drama dept.

Patents 74

An anonymous reader writes "Remember The Right Honourable Professor Sir Robin Jacob, Retired Lord Justice, who staged a temporary comeback on the bench of the England and Wales Court of Appeals last fall? He's the one who required Apple to publicly retract its claims that Samsung copied the iPad and imposed sanctions on Cupertino when he concluded Tim Cook's lawyers hadn't fully complied. He has now made worldwide headline news again because he signed up as a Samsung expert witness at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Samsung says he was hired by its law firm, not the company, but the ITC filing says 'Sir Robin Jacob working on behalf of Samsung.' His clerk issued a statement according to which Sir Robin had no idea of Samsung's desire to hire him before January — two months after he gave Apple a blast. Leading legal blogs agree that there is no evidence any law was violated, but they suspect that 'the general issue of what engagements retired judges are permitted to accept will be very much up for discussion' and that this was 'a less than savvy public relations move by Samsung' because it casts doubt on the widely-noticed ruling in its favor. As one of them puts it, in the U.K. you 'never know if the judge might be looking for a new job,' so you better 'make sure [you] have fat rolls of cash spilling out of [your] pockets' in front of a U.K. judge."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

74 comments

This is nothing short of a monstering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055327)

n/t

frosty piss is taster (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055331)

when you drink it from the tap!

Re:frosty piss is taster (1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43055641)

"...when you drink it from the tap!"

Yes, that's right, like the retired judge, I too am marketing my effluent to the highest bidder. But on the English side of the "pond", they serve it room temperature.

so you can't get a job after retirement? (2, Informative)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43055385)

looks bad but in reality a judge like this will probably preside over cases with most companies in a given countries and lots of other large organizations. even if you institute a 2-3 year rule of not taking a job with a party to a lawsuit you preside over that is a lot of potential work and probably infringes on non-compete laws

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055465)

No one would be accusing him of impropriety now if he was working for Apple. If Samsung hired him purely on the basis of his qualifications and not because of his beneficial treatment, then conversely Apple should have no qualms about hiring him just because he mistreated them.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055475)

looks bad

Yes, it does. And as a judge, he should avoid "looking bad." Reverse the position: imagine that Judge Lucy Koh (you know, the one who awarded a big-ass judgement against Samsung here in the US) 'retires,' and goes to work in Apple's legal department two months later.

How many bloody murders are screamed by Slashdot, and how many petitions are generated at Whitehouse.gov by outraged neckbeards, demanding that Pres. Obama become a dictator, step in, and have her thrown in Gitmo, because she was clearly prejudiced, and Apple used its money to buy a friendly ruling against poor little innocent, beleaguered Samsung?

Repeat after me: It does not matter what company does it - if it's fucking bad behavior, it's bad behavior and deserves to be criticized. You lot need to stop making excuses for your teams. If Samsung does it and it's bad, it deserves criticism. If Apple does it and it's bad, it deserves criticism.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (5, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year ago | (#43055505)

Yes, it does. And as a judge, he should avoid "looking bad." Reverse the position: imagine that Judge Lucy Koh (you know, the one who awarded a big-ass judgement against Samsung here in the US) 'retires,' and goes to work in Apple's legal department two months later.

Funny you should mention that. Judge Koh actually did do work for Apple before she became a judge. Are you suggesting she should have recused herself?

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055549)

Are you suggesting she should have recused herself?

If she worked for Apple before, then yes, she should have recused herself. I'm not aware of what work she did before for Apple, I haven't seen it reported, so I'd actually love to see some information about that.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43057165)

"Are you suggesting she should have recused herself?"

It could depend. If she worked for Apple and maybe she hated Apple as a result, she didn't like her boss and/or the employees, it could potentially change her decision? Who knows.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (3, Informative)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43055507)

lucy koh didn't award a cent. in fact she reduced an award that a jury of 12 people awarded apple

if you're a corporate lawyer or judge presiding over corporate law lawsuits then you deal with so many companies that it would be impossible for you to get a job in your area if you had rules like this

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (2)

Americano (920576) | about a year ago | (#43055733)

Right, and if you told politicians that they can't go work for lobbying firms the moment they're out of office, they'd never be able to find a job in the private sector, either! So you can't possible put limits on them going to work for lobbying firms who benefitted from legislation that was passed by the politicians!

Your argument is an argument in favor of tolerating - even encouraging - political corruption. You do realize that, don't you?

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (2)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#43055761)

All law firms have a formal process in place to make sure that they are not working for both sides in a law case. This can be difficult in large firms but they have to make sure that they are not conflicted. Even if the lawyers are working in different departments and on completely different areas of the law, they recuse themselves from one side of the case.
There is no reason the same procedures and prohibitions (ethical) should not apply to judges (whether working or "retired").

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055899)

> All law firms have a formal process in place ...

Posting anonymously so's I don't lose my mod points.

The poster is absolutely right. Years ago, I worked with a friend on a software package for a law firm in his home town. One of the biggest things they wanted was a "conflict checker" -- it was a BIG deal, and a BIG no-no, for them to represent someone against a former client. At the time, the state of the art was just to go through the Rolodex and the files and look at the names one by one.

-- Stephen

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055583)

Actually, the arguments as to why this isn't bad are pretty good. This isn't a sitting judge, he's simply consulting after retirement and it's unlikely any company able to afford him wasn't in front of his bench at one point.

On the other hand, I don't see the Apple fans who said Samsung copied Apple and should be put out of business saying that Apple copied Facetime and they should remove it from their phones. Granted, there is a decent amount of Schadenfreude on the pro-Sammy side but it's generally more in the line of "you reap what you sow" rather than actually calling Facetime a blatant copy (which is ironic since it really is just a Skype clone, Skype being far from the original video chat solution...).

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055701)

This isn't a sitting judge

No, this is a judge who retired 2 months ago, and suddenly he's employed by the beneficiary of his decisions in the highest-profile case he's ever adjudicated.

saying that Apple copied Facetime and they should remove it from their phones

What patented technology does Facetime infringe upon? It's based on numerous open standards, I'd be surprised if Apple had patents, or claimed exclusivity, on any of the key patents for video, voice, or telephony. Given that, what reason would anybody have to argue that it should be removed - does it infringe on Skype's patents, simply by "working like Skype?" (Hint: the correct answer here is 'no.' You can build work-alike systems, you just can't copy someone else's patented implementation without licensing agreements) Apple DID get slapped for infringing on VirnetX's patents, and got hit with a ~$360m judgement, and ordered to "work out a licensing deal" with VirnetX. Has Skype filed similar legal action? I'm not aware of any.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year ago | (#43056389)

This is hardly his highest profile ever case. Perhaps for the geek community, but for him it's small change.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43056759)

It is simply untrue that he retired two months ago. He retired in 2011 - he had to make an application to retire and have that application accepted. He was then _asked_ to return to the bench for the Samsung case because of his expertise, because retired judges can be asked to do that in their field of expertise.

So his retirement didn't happen in some convenient window between ruling for Samsung and then working for Samsung at all, which upsets your conspiracy theory interpretation apple cart a bit, does it not?

Which is not to mention that he's not in Samsung's employ at all, but has been contracted by their law firm. To provide advice. In a case in an unrelated area. In a different legal jurisdiction. At an ordinary consulting rate.

This is a lot of shit designed to attract this kind of aspersion on a judge's character, all kicked off by a dubious post by Florian fucking Mueller for Christ's sake. The summary has conflated a bunch of articles, some evenhanded and some not, into an allegation that Jacob is a 'conflicted judge', and that his expert consulting work for a law firm hired by Samsung is some sort of kickback.

Can we not try to actually understand the situation before we assume that it's simple, lazy corruption?

Captcha: retrofit.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

eyendall (953949) | about a year ago | (#43062855)

Well put. There should be reasonable limits put on expressions of conspiracy and paranoia particularly when the incident takes place in another country and political-legal culture entirly unlike that in the US.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43056435)

Heresy!!!1one

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43059799)

But is it bad? I despise the corruption in the US system and will call more things corruption than many other people may. This employment as a witness is one thing I can't confidently consider corruption. The judge is not acting as a lawyer for Samsung. He is acting as a witness in an area where he undeniably has expertise. He could answer questions while examined in a way that benefits Apple while remaining proper in his role as an expert witness. In fact he is required by law to do so if a question requires answers unflattering to Samsung. His work will be in plain view, on record and subject to scrutiny. Expert witnesses have autonomy. Lawyers as reperesentatives most definitely do not.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

eyendall (953949) | about a year ago | (#43062819)

No it doesn't "look bad". Remember this is the UK not the US where paranoia and distrust of every form of authority runs rampant. Often with good reason with respect to the partisan US judicial system. The judge is no longer involved with the Apple-Samsung case; there is no evidence that his decision in that case was questionable on legal grounds; and he states that the Samsung job emerged well after the trial. Jocob is entitled by position and record to be taken at his word. I know, a strange concept in the corrupt US.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055483)

There are hundreds of thousands of companies out there. Please explain how "cannot work for these few dozen" translates into "cannot get a job", unless retired judges can indeed only get jobs through kickbacks from previous cases.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43055511)

i'm sure a 3 person start up is going to pay $200,000 to a retired federal judge to run their legal team

if you retire in the area you worked as a judge in then you're limited by local employment

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

Americano (920576) | about a year ago | (#43055615)

I'm sorry, are federal judges not given generous federal retirement benefits?

If you retire in the area you worked as a federal judge, you can...
1) Teach - many judges do this, and end up professors at a law school.
2) Write
3) Speak
4) Run for political office
5) Work in an unrelated field;
6) Practice law, with some sort of perfectly reasonable "no working for companies who had cases before you within 5 years of the closure of the case" clause;
7) Be on retainer for numerous 3-person startups in tech law, to provide them with patent and other legal advice;
8) Be retired, and enjoy your new free time while collecting generous federal retirement benefits;

How is "you can't retire, and 2 months later, go work for the highest-profile client you ever worked for and decided in favor of," some sort of undue burden for a person whose ENTIRE job description can be summed up as "apply the law impartially, and exhibit no personal preference or interest in the case"?

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

Miseph (979059) | about a year ago | (#43057445)

The Right Honourable Professor Sir Robin Jacob, Retired Lord Justice has never been, nor ever will be a Federal Judge.

He is British, and his tenure as a judge was served in the United Kingdoms.

As to your list:

1) He is currently a professor at University College London (thanks Wikipedia!). It is fairly common for professors of law to also work in that field: Alan Dershowitz is a full-time professor at Harvard, and I once took a class with a professor who was, at the time, representing a man held in Guantanamo (IANAL, it was an intro class).
2) Yes, it seems safe to say he is at least partially literate. What exactly do you think he would write about, and who exactly do you believe would pay him to do so?
3) Again, yes, safe assumption. Who would he speak to? What about? Why? Who would pay him to do so?
4) He's in his 70s, and has already performed many decades of government service by working as a judge. Why would he do this?
5) Again, he's in his 70s and has been working in law for his entire adult life. What field would you expect to see him in?
6) The man is in the IP Hall of Fame (not making this up, check Wiki!). Do you really think that there are going to be many companies who care about his expertise and have not been directly or indirectly impacted by his decisions?
7) Why would he do this? That sounds like the sort of thing a shark trying to build up a law firm should do... this is a VERY respected retired judge.
8) Fair enough... though again, no Federal benefits will be going his way (the UK government probably offers benefits too, though).

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

Americano (920576) | about a year ago | (#43058489)

Did you read the person I responded to? He suggested that limiting a judge's ability to retire and go directly to work for someone whose case he JUST finished adjudicating is an undue burden on them, and that they wouldn't be able to support themselves or find work.

He also is the one who brought up "federal judge" - I'm well aware that the judge in this case is British. s/Federal/UK/g if you really want to be pedantic - I'm fairly certain that the UK isn't turning their retired judges out to a life of poverty on the streets.

What exactly do you think he would write about

Textbooks, law journal articles, etc? The same thing MANY other retired lawyers and judges write.

Who would he speak to? What about? Why? Who would pay him to do so?

Lawyers' groups? Law firms? Law students? The segment of the public that might be interested in IP law reform, if that is his special area of expertise?

Why should he do this?

I never suggested he "should" - I said he COULD, if he - having retired - was bored, or felt the need to earn some additional money.

Do you really think that there are going to be many companies who care about his expertise...

Yes, actually, I do. Because I specifically said, "some sort of perfectly reasonable 'no working for companies who had a case before you within 5 years of the closure of the case,' clause." He has not seen cases covering the entirety of the tech industry in his tenure as a judge. He has not seen cases covering even a majority of the tech industry - I said nothing about "any company IMPACTED by his decisions" - I said "companies involved in a suit (defendant or plaintiff) which he has sat on."

7) Why would he do this?

Again, I never said he "had" to, I said he "could" do it, if he felt that he needed more money, or was just so bored that he wanted to be involved with the legal profession still. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that a highly respected judge with a generous government retirement plan wouldn't have to worry about "making money in his field," after retirement - the person I responded to apparently thinks that that assumption is unreasonable, and that retired judges need to keep on working. I highlighted numerous ways a retired judge could make money and keep working without having to be an employe of a company whose case he recently adjudicated.

Did you read the comment I responded to, at all?

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43059881)

FFS, you bloody nut, he isn't WORKING for Samsung, he's a WITNESS . Also, this "story" is brought to you by the known shithead, dick-sucker, corporate shill and general asshole FLORIAN MUELLER, who should have no credibility left at all by this time.

If you're buying into this shit, you're a total intellectual failure. Please step away from the keyboard and return to flipping burgers.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

Wovel (964431) | about a year ago | (#43106381)

It is not just his ruling in the case and taking the job afterword. He also made a ludicrous ruling that looked like he was already working for Samsung's marketing department. Perhaps people in the UK don't hold their judges to a very high standard of conduct.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055647)

i'm sure a 3 person start up is going to pay $200,000 to a retired federal judge to run their legal team

if you retire in the area you worked as a judge in then you're limited by local employment

Right, because depriving judges of opportunities to earn six figures after they've already chosen where and when to retire is a breach of fundamental human rights.

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43055659)

This is exactly the kind of revolving door that I find the most revolting.

I'm in favor of Android prospering, but I'm not in favor of government officials (public servants?) being rewarded with high paying jobs. "I'm sorry, we can't give you cash outright, but we can give you a job where you don't actually have to do anything useful." How is that not still bribery?

Re:so you can't get a job after retirement? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43055703)

It's more the fact he did this big case and has ended up with a job for the winner afterwards. If there was years between the two incidents no one would have thought about it.

delicately speaking.... (2, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year ago | (#43055399)

This rises a smidge above the appearance of impropiety.

Re:delicately speaking.... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055619)

This former judge appears to be breaking the rules. The terms and conditions of service [judiciary.gov.uk] have an absolute prohibition on returning to practice:

Prohibition on Practice: A Salaried Employment Judge shall not practise as a barrister or solicitor or be indirectly concerned in any such practice (s.75 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990). The Lord Chancellor also regards a judicial office as a lifetime appointment. Any offer of appointment is therefore made on the understanding that appointees will not return to practice.

plus a prohibition on any activity that might appear to raise a conflict of interest.

Outside activities and interests: An Employment Judge should not in any capacity engage in any activity which might undermine, or be reasonably thought to undermine, his or her judicial independence or impartiality.

Note that the appointment is for life, so he is still covered by the second rule.

Re:delicately speaking.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055847)

Um... A salaried employment judge is a judge that sits over employment matters... don't trust me? look it up on Google...

Re:delicately speaking.... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43056257)

You are misunderstanding. The second one is about judges still acting as judges, which he isn't. He retired.

And the first doesn't apply either because he isn't practicing as a barrister or solicitor either. He was hired to advise a law firm as an expert. That
just isn't the same thing.

Re:delicately speaking.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43056531)

This is simply untrue. Robin Jacob made an application to retire, which was accepted, in 2011. He then retired, but was subsequently asked to return to the bench for the Samsung case. He's breaking no rules.

Re:delicately speaking.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43059919)

Informative? My ass. Or rather, you're one.

FIrstly; He isn't doing anything of what you are alleging. In fact you're being libelous. He isn't practicing as a solicitor, barrister or judge. He's a witness.

Secondly; He has retired, over a year ago. He was asked to do a "special appearance" in the Samsung case because of his competence.

Thirdly; Your entire "argument" hinges on "The Lord Chancellor also regards a judicial office as a lifetime appointment", which is quite deliberately disingenuous, or are you saying judges are like slaves, and have no right to say "I quit"?

Re:delicately speaking.... (2)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43055985)

I agree with you that this stinks of a post-desirous-outcome bribe after-the-fact. It definitely doesn't look good. But what's with the silly title of this article: "Conflicted judges are Classier with English Accents" ???
.
I actually expected something about how people (defendants, claimants) perceive their judge or arbitrator to be "classier" or "fairer" or "more important" if they happened to speak with a particular type of accent. The title turns out to be just a snarky piece of bitchiness. That's so rude and inappropriate and silly. It's getting a little tiresome here on /. these days.

re: delicately speaking (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year ago | (#43060939)

Aside from the title's nonchalance regarding accuracy, DO you think that certain English dialects impart an aura of class or import to the speaker?

Re: delicately speaking (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43062077)

re DO you think that certain English dialects impart an aura of class or import to the speaker? Yes, I do think that there are people who tend to ascribe more credibility or authority to people who speak in certain ways (dialect, use of slang, use of profanity). I am not one of those persons, but there are people around me at school who hang on the words of those with particular accents or discount others with the wrong types of speech mannerisms. For a musical take on this, see the musical performance "My Fair Lady". It shows at the least that people have believed this sort of thing for close to a century.

Brave (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055405)

Oh, Brave Sir Robin!

Corrupt UK judges are nothing new... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055411)

however I am absolutely surprised at the timespans involved here. When you get into cases where there are billions at stake, it is very difficult for judges not to want to reach out and grab a piece of that for themselves, but to make it seem so obvious and apparent is strange. He must have been desperate to leave the bench.

Appearance more important than fact. (4, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#43055419)

Perhaps the judge's expertise is due to the fact that he spent months listening to both sides of the matter, sifting through conflicting evidence and judging the validity of the positions to come up with an unbiased conclusion. There would be no better expert on the case than the judge that heard it. He would be the best person to explain why he made the decision that he did and be the best one to convince others of his logic. It is not necessarily a judge giving a decision so he can get a future job. This is another instance of appearance of conflict being more important that actual conflict.

Casting doubt is not an issue. If another judge reviewed the ruling and found fault then there would be an issue. Every ruling should be able to be reviewed at any time without the review causing issues. The whole "There is a review there must be something wrong" is stupid. Wait for the review to be over and then make a judgement. Many reviews are done to remove appearances of conflict and prove that no conflict existed.

Re:Appearance more important than fact. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055563)

Correct. Judges generally go out of their way to avoid even an appearance of conflict because people often believe "where there's smoke there's fire." In this case, the judge chose to put personal gain over the reputation of the judiciary. Of course he has every right to do so, and as you note, it may be that his unique expertise made him the best person for the job.

Problem is, we will never know if that was the case or if this was payback for a favorable ruling. It's impossible to establish intent, especially lack of intent.

Re:Appearance more important than fact. (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43055627)

Perhaps the judge's expertise is due to the fact that he spent months listening to both sides of the matter, sifting through conflicting evidence and judging the validity of the positions to come up with an unbiased conclusion...

Or perhaps Samsung paid him a metric butt-load of English poundage, and the judge said "WHOOPEE!"

Re:Appearance more important than fact. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055809)

Or perhaps Samsung paid him a metric butt-load of English poundage, and the judge said "WHOOPEE!"

In some circles a butt-load of poundage is not something to whoop about....

Re:Appearance more important than fact. (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#43056177)

It is possible but people need not jump to that conclusion without evidence.

Re:Appearance more important than fact. (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year ago | (#43062781)

But they could have done that without hiring him for this. Which would be a lot less suspicious (particularly if it shows up on is tax returns). And presumably they would have had to also pay of the other two judges.

Of course, this still seems wrong to me, but the parent's reasoning (for why he would be a natural choice for either side) does seem to hold up - if it is within the rules for judges.

But it doesn't look good. And judges, even retired judges, should do so.

Re:Appearance more important than fact. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055871)

His only expertise is as the judge of a case then the court transcripts are the entirety of the evidence.

Using a judge in this manner is unconscionable in my mind, there should definitely be a period of time in which he cannot work for or against a party which was before him in court. In this case the same company (Samsung) was upset that a juror may have been biased since he filed a lawsuit a number of years earlier against a company they later acquired, yet getting a judge from a case they were involved with merely a year ago is a-ok? No, it's not.

Re:Appearance more important than fact. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43056189)

Minor/major point - depending on what you thought was happening: they're not "getting a judge", they're "getting an expert witness, who was a judge".

It raises questions about impartiality of his previous UK ruling, but has nothing to do with him being involved in US lawsuit as a witness, so your stab about jury selection is misdirected. There's quite a difference in how much you can influence the process as a witness and as a jury foreman.

Re:Appearance more important than fact. (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#43059361)

His only expertise is as the judge of a case then the court transcripts are the entirety of the evidence.

According to this article [ucl.ac.uk] :

He started practice at the Intellectual Property Bar in 1967. From 1976 to 1981 he was the Junior Counsel for the Comptroller of Patents and for all Government departments in intellectual property.

Perhaps working in IP for 14 years, five of which as a IP council for the government, might make him an expert. Check out his books, articles and lectures. Yeah, this judge is an expert. UCL [ucl.ac.uk] seems to think he is an expert too.

You might want to at least put his name into Google before making statements.

Re:Appearance more important than fact. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43056265)

He wasn't the judge on the case. He, along with two others, were doing the appeal. The other two
could have overruled him, so this is the usual Florian Mueller ugly tempest in a teapot.

It was a Muller plant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43056665)

Ah well, there goes any belief in this being genuinely bad. Florian just rakes up shit and pretends it's a tragedy.

Herp derp (1, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#43055463)

in the U.K. you 'never know if the judge might be looking for a new job,' so you better 'make sure [you] have fat rolls of cash spilling out of [your] pockets' in front of a U.K. judge."

When the UK has judges sending kids to PMITA in return for kickbacks from for-profit prison operators you can bash us limeys and our legal systems all you like.

Till then just shut the fuck up already, you fat bastard.

Re:Herp derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055487)

Someone didn't get hugged enough today.

Re:Herp derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055519)

Right, because it's only corrupt judges who accept kickbacks, and that could never happen in the UK.

Oh wait.

One word for US citizens - lobbyists (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43055545)

Apparently when US corporations hire Washington DC power-brokers to represent their interests, this is an important part of the democratic process. The theory is that the corporations and those that represent them have a special insight into certain issues, making them qualified to advise the US government on policy. Sometimes generous (legal) campaign contributions are made as part of this process.

So it's fine for US corporations to funnel money towards currently elected officials. But oh no! In the UK, a retired judge formerly involved in a high-profile case has been employed by one of the conflicting parties!

Well, this can't be "lobbying", because Judge Jacob no longer has any formal judicial powers. It seems that he is being paid to give legal advice to a multi-national corporation.

If only Apple/Samsung could have found a way to pay him money while he was still a member of the judiciary. Oh wait. This story is about the UK. It turns out that "lobbying" is regarded as a form of corruption in that country.

Re:One word for US citizens - lobbyists (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43055843)

What exactly are you trying to say?

Do you think no one realizes whats going in the US?

Do you think that something different is going on in the UK? I hope not, cause the point here is that ... he's doing the same shit that happens in the US. Find in their favor, retire, and go work for them ...

Re:One word for US citizens - lobbyists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43057039)

" Find in their favor, retire, and go work for them"

Except that he hasn't gone to work for them. And the sequence wasn't as you have put it.

But apart from that, yeah. I mean, basically wrong is the same as mostly right for slashdot armchair pundits, right?

Crease and Desist (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43055555)

Apple already has the patent on buying judges.

I predict lawsuits.

Design patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43056757)

Apple already has the patent on buying judges.

No, Apple doesn't have any "real" patents. They do, however, have a design patent on "strategies to gain judicial advantage implemented via general purpose currency devices."

Advice to judges (1)

gtirloni (1531285) | about a year ago | (#43055595)

If you're in a conflict of interest situation, make sure to add that English accent so at least you look classier than you already are.

-- Slashdot career advice

Line 0: Summary and headline mismatch (4, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43055857)

Other the the word 'judge', what the fuck does the headline have to do with the summary? Is slashdot trying to get some sort of record for worst 'journalism' ever?

Re:Line 0: Summary and headline mismatch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43057521)

I was wondering too.
It looks like the last link goes to http://abovethelaw.com/2013/03/conflicts-of-interest-are-just-classier-with-english-accents/
which uh. okay then.

It sure does make a bad Slashdot headline.

Integrity of Mr Mueller? Does he have one? (2)

sfcrazy (1542989) | about a year ago | (#43056735)

The press has stopped listening to Mr Mueller, but there are still some lazy bloggers out their which take the bait. Mr Mueller when you point a finger at someone else the rest of the four fingers point at you and looking at your monotonous track-record (which is getting painfully boring). Mr Mueller should add a disclaimer to all of your posts that he gets paid by Microsoft and Oracle so people know "For someone so concerned with "integrity" it is utterly unusual to write extremely biased blogs against a particular party (Android in this case) only to be hired as a consultant by the opposition parties (Microsoft and Oracle in this case)." [muktware.com]

Re:Integrity of Mr Mueller? Does he have one? (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#43060911)

he's a blogger, the other's as high court judge. If you are so pissed off with a blogger being hired by oracle, shouldn't you be even more pissed off at a high court judge who just 4 months ago finished a case for Samsung, and is now hired by samsung? don't bother with the fake argument of he doesn't really work for samsung. Samsung's footing the bill, and the judge is not working for free.

Investigate, at the very least (1)

tsj5j (1159013) | about a year ago | (#43060425)

There should be an investigation, at the very least, started by the judicial departments to clarify this matter. There's a huge potential for corruption here.

By the way, I'm not sure why Samsung is given so much support here. If you replaced the judge above with the one who ruled in Apple's favour, and replaced Samsung with Apple, people here will be screaming "CORRUPTION", guaranteed.
Worse still, the top voted comments include ones mocking Apple (clearly off-topic, isn't it?).
Learn to look past your bias: this isn't right. Just think for a moment if such practices were condoned: as a judge looking to retire, he'd be more likely to rule for the big corps against the little guy, as there might just be a chance he'd get a nice job with a fat paycheck at the end of it.

Re: Investigate, at the very least (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43060853)

I see very few posts supporting Samsung, and a lot of posts defending the integrity, which one should presume, of a judge over the integrity of his accuser.

Re: Investigate, at the very least (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43061791)

"the integrity of his accuser"

You mean Florian Mueller has anything resembling integrity? Seriously?

Captcha: "silliest". How fitting.

Jacob Not a Partisan Hack Unlike in US (1)

eyendall (953949) | about a year ago | (#43062791)

In the UK the judiciary is generally highly respected for integrity and independence. Conservative, yes, but that is the way it should be for a healthy society. Change should not be easy or simply popular. The US on the other hand has institutionalized a partisan and corrupt juidiciary through the election of judges and through blatant political appointments. You would be an idiot to credit US justices on the whole with integrity and independence. All to say that I see no reasonable appearance of conflict of interest or improper judicial behaviour arising from the Apple-Samsung case, and have no concern over Jacob's acceptance to work on the Samsung brief to the WTO. Apple lost its case over a point of law not from some arbitrary and corrupt judge's opinion.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...