Judge That Forced Apple To Apologize Now Works For Samsung

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Oh, you know Apple is probably having a fit over this. :D

For someone so concerned with "integrity" it is utterly unusual to issue a high-profile and extreme ruling in favor of a particular party (Samsung in this case) only to be hired as an expert by that same party in another dispute. But that's what has happened here, and I wonder how certain people in Cupertino feel about it.
 
Ah hell.

I sense trouble in paradise. I'd be looking for anything to over rule the judge's "Neutral" decision and use this short time frame as a good basis on that.
 
Sounds like blatant corruption to me, and its what people like Ron Paul have always warned us about. Government powers need to be taken back and far more limited, and the powers they do have need to be audited more frequently to eliminate the rampant corruption that has taken place now where lobbiests and special interest groups end up dictating policy. And this is common place btw, in so many industries the government officials creating policy cycle in and out of the major corporations in the industry that they make rulings on. A great example is the whole monsanto/GMO corn/pesticide debacle as described in Food Inc. (think that was the one).
 
And what I understood is that when it comes to situations like this, they don't even have to prove that the judge has a conflict of interest. All that has to be shown (and should be the case), is that there is the potential that a reasonable person could see an opportunity for bias to occur. I'm definitely popping some popcorn to see how this plays out, even though I actually agree with the ruling that Apple should have to apologize for its BS trolling.
 
For someone so concerned with "integrity" it is utterly unusual to issue a high-profile and extreme ruling in favor of a particular party (Samsung in this case) only to be hired as an expert by that same party in another dispute. But that's what has happened here, and I wonder how certain people in Cupertino feel about it.

What are they talking about, this happens all the time.

Outgoing FCC member to join Comcast
http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...065_1_baker-comcast-fcc-chairman-kevin-martin
 
I don't know why anyone would be shocked by this. Corruption became clearly evident as the story unfolded.
 
If any of you guys follow Samsung in South Korea, they are probably one of the most corrupt companies in the world. The people who own the company pretty much never pay taxes. You dont get to an absolute monopoly in a company in pretty much all aspects (also commands over 20% of the country's GDP) without being a little corrupt or doing shady things. Imagine if GE owned apple, google, exxon mobil, and many other giants in so many different industries. The US gov. would probably have stepped in long before they even got close to being as big as Apple and Google combined.
 
If any of you guys follow Samsung in South Korea, they are probably one of the most corrupt companies in the world. The people who own the company pretty much never pay taxes. You dont get to an absolute monopoly in a company in pretty much all aspects (also commands over 20% of the country's GDP) without being a little corrupt or doing shady things. Imagine if GE owned apple, google, exxon mobil, and many other giants in so many different industries. The US gov. would probably have stepped in long before they even got close to being as big as Apple and Google combined.

Funny you mention General electric who makes everything from appliances, to, jet engines,to healthcare, to sofware, to weapons, to owning TV networks...and hasn't paid any corporate taxes in 4 years.
 
Funny you mention General electric who makes everything from appliances, to, jet engines,to healthcare, to sofware, to weapons, to owning TV networks...and hasn't paid any corporate taxes in 4 years.

Thats exactly why I mention GE. Though GE is big they dont make the same amount of revenue as Samsung does. They GE in America isnt the LARGEST and most powerful company commanding 1/5th+ of a nations economy.
 
Samsung figured after they lost the case in CA to the judge who used to work for a law firm that represented apple they needed the same kind of leverage.
 
Imagine if GE owned apple, google, exxon mobil, and many other giants in so many different industries. The US gov. would probably have stepped in long before they even got close to being as big as Apple and Google combined.

Doubt it.
Instead they would be called "to big to fail" and then given billions in taxpayers money to bail them out.
 
They shoul not be too surprised, the judge that ruled for themin the US used to work for a firm that did Apple's legal work. If they complain, say "Pot meet Kettle"
 
For the right amount of money people will do anything. Everyone has their price and clearly this judge met his. Simple.
 
They shoul not be too surprised, the judge that ruled for themin the US used to work for a firm that did Apple's legal work. If they complain, say "Pot meet Kettle"

Because working in a firm that happens to have Apple as a client and outright joining the party you ruled for in a case are the same thing.
 
Sounds like blatant corruption to me, and its what people like Ron Paul have always warned us about. Government powers need to be taken back and far more limited, and the powers they do have need to be audited more frequently to eliminate the rampant corruption that has taken place now where lobbiests and special interest groups end up dictating policy. And this is common place btw, in so many industries the government officials creating policy cycle in and out of the major corporations in the industry that they make rulings on. A great example is the whole monsanto/GMO corn/pesticide debacle as described in Food Inc. (think that was the one).

Ron Paul warned us about government corruption in the UK? I had no idea.
 
Because working in a firm that happens to have Apple as a client and outright joining the party you ruled for in a case are the same thing.

They both represent serious legal conflicts of interest that should have had both judges recuse themselves from the cases, although in the most recent case, the judge performed an action AFTER the fact that indicated a conflict of interest.

But hey, what's all this about integrity these days? Don't need any of that in our judicial process when there's money to be made!
 
While I don't support Apples anti-competitive "sue and block competitors" approach of running a business, this judge was clearly offered much more money by Samsung then what Apple was willing to slip him. This judge should be fined heavily, lose his law degree, and serve jail time for taking bribes as an official.
 
It might have been more interesting if the linked article wasn't so biased--I couldn't read past the blatant pro-Apple bias in the first few paragraphs.

All kidding aside, Apple contended that the Samsung phone was a carbon-copy of the iPhone, and that people were actually buying Samsung phones thinking they were buying iPhones. Everybody knows that was a ridiculous accusation because not only does Samsung not make a phone branded "iPhone," Apple doesn't manufacture iPhones with the word "Samsung" either on the front or on the back, Samsung doesn't use iOS and Apple doesn't use anything else--and on and on, ad infinitum. In short, only a fool would believe that a single solitary soul on this earth actually bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone. The differences far outweigh the similarities. This judge had balls and simply called Apple out on it. That's it. Apple, not unexpectedly, acted the part of a spoiled child in response--and ended up rightfully a laughing stock.

No wonder Samsung hired this judge as an expert (a part time position, to be sure, as I very much doubt the judge is giving up the bench to go to work for Samsung, despite what this biased article implies.) He is by far the most intelligent legal personage involved in this ridiculous lawsuit. Samsung could do much worse than finding someone who could not only take people on a point-by-point journey through the iPhone and Samsung phones and point out the many radical differences that exist between the phones, but he could also explain the law to layman jurors as well.
 
If any of you guys follow Samsung in South Korea, they are probably one of the most corrupt companies in the world. The people who own the company pretty much never pay taxes. You dont get to an absolute monopoly in a company in pretty much all aspects (also commands over 20% of the country's GDP) without being a little corrupt or doing shady things. Imagine if GE owned apple, google, exxon mobil, and many other giants in so many different industries. The US gov. would probably have stepped in long before they even got close to being as big as Apple and Google combined.


I think most Americans do not understand how Korean companies work and operate. They are owned by a handful of families who, to be quite honest, control every aspect of your life in South Korea. As far as i know they even want to push out all the the small grocery chain stores so they can make even more money. As bad as it is in the States it is a lot worse for Koreans. You as an individual can compete at any level and have to subdue your your life to their whims.
 
It might have been more interesting if the linked article wasn't so biased--I couldn't read past the blatant pro-Apple bias in the first few paragraphs.

All kidding aside, Apple contended that the Samsung phone was a carbon-copy of the iPhone, and that people were actually buying Samsung phones thinking they were buying iPhones. Everybody knows that was a ridiculous accusation because not only does Samsung not make a phone branded "iPhone," Apple doesn't manufacture iPhones with the word "Samsung" either on the front or on the back, Samsung doesn't use iOS and Apple doesn't use anything else--and on and on, ad infinitum. In short, only a fool would believe that a single solitary soul on this earth actually bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone. The differences far outweigh the similarities. This judge had balls and simply called Apple out on it. That's it. Apple, not unexpectedly, acted the part of a spoiled child in response--and ended up rightfully a laughing stock.

No wonder Samsung hired this judge as an expert (a part time position, to be sure, as I very much doubt the judge is giving up the bench to go to work for Samsung, despite what this biased article implies.) He is by far the most intelligent legal personage involved in this ridiculous lawsuit. Samsung could do much worse than finding someone who could not only take people on a point-by-point journey through the iPhone and Samsung phones and point out the many radical differences that exist between the phones, but he could also explain the law to layman jurors as well.

Yes, Touchwiz CLEARLY wasnt a blatent ripoff of IOS, and Samsung still doesnt blatently copy Apples software design, even down to the backgrounds.

Right.

Suing for a rounded rectangle is stupid, Apple should win that.
Suing for blatent software design theft is, and im glad apple won.
 
That High pitch whining sound you hear is the cry of the Cult of Apple.

The 2nd whirring sound you hear is Steve jobs. :)
 
Contracted and hired are two different things. From what I have read, the judge does appear to be contracted.
 
People kill people all the time too. I guess that's ok, then. check.

Read what you're replying to. That comment was refuting the idea that this sort of corruption is unusual. Does not at all claim it makes it okay.
 
Why aren't there laws that prevent this? Like a senator who pushes for a very lucrative contract or excuses some company from wrong doings and next thing you know they have a very high paying job in that company.

You're a judge who rules in favor of a company you should not be able to work for that company EVER, and yes for every company you give a ruling to. I mean shit you have a position of power over all, you shouldn't get to have the same liberties that everyday people have.
 
It is fun to see all the clueless iFans who don't even know that the judge was from the UK, not the USA.
And from there onwards they just keep spouting cluelessness about what was judged over there, and pretty much claim for his head on a stake, when the other way around happened on the USA in a worse fashion, since the possible conflict of interest was from the start, as the USA's judge had prior work on said firm that was a legal branch of Apple.

And "extreme ruling against Apple"? really? because i remember a 1 Billion US $ ruling pro Apple with numbers taken from someone's behind by people who didn't even bother to read how they were supposed to do their jury duty in the only country where Apple won.

Sweet, sweet iTears.
 
Man, these things just don't end do they? Not that I didn't agree with his judgement, but regardless of what it was, it was obviously not for "justice" or anything like that.

If anyone is to be an example of blatant corruption, it's Ron Paul.

How so? Please explain.
 
Yes, Touchwiz CLEARLY wasnt a blatent ripoff of IOS, and Samsung still doesnt blatently copy Apples software design, even down to the backgrounds.

Right.

Suing for a rounded rectangle is stupid, Apple should win that.
Suing for blatent software design theft is, and im glad apple won.

Sorry, Apple should *lose* the hardware design patent case.
They should def win the touchwiz design case though.
 
Read what you're replying to. That comment was refuting the idea that this sort of corruption is unusual. Does not at all claim it makes it okay.
What I was replying to tried to downplay this specific act by claiming it was common. Maybe didn't say it was ok, but tried to pull and officer Barbrady and imply 'nothing to see here, move along'.
 
The whole problem with software patents is that nobody starts with a clean slate.

If I go to work for Brand X coding, when Brand X shuts down, and I hire on for Brand Y, do I throw away my previous work?

When Lotus sued Microsoft over Excel being stolen from 1-2-3, Microsoft countered that Lotus stole it from Multiplan?

They need to get rid of software patents, It was a stupid idea to begin with, it was copyright stuff beforehand.

According the to concept of software patents, if I figure out a way to mow my lawn faster, I can patent it, even if my neighbors told me how to do it.
 
Back
Top