decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
So what's the scoop here? | 141 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
So what's the scoop here?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 08:05 AM EST
Do you really think so? Sir Robin was retired before he sat as one of three judges on the Appeal court (a common occurrence when an expert is required). They agreed with the original Judge and gave reasoned arguments for affirming the "publicity order" which Apple then 'gamed'. It is when Apple were hauled back into court that the, FM-designated, "extreme ruling for Samsung" was issued which made them comply with the original order and questioned what they had actually done, pointing out some factual errors.

This is purely a FM managed churnalism story - all he had was Sir Robin's as one of a number of names on a letter to the FTC. He characterised this as being "hired by Samsung" which turns out to be false. Previous links will show the rebuttal.

Perhaps he should be asked how he got hold of this letter, dated the previous day to the 'Secretary', with the filing naming these experts? I could not find this publicly available on their website (but could be wrong). However it was obtained (deliberately leaked by mischief maker?) it was clearly used for his own purposes, to rehash misinformation about the Apple case by smearing the reputation of a distinguished ex-High Court Judge - he is certainly inaccurate in retelling that story.

If you can see a conflict of interest (in a completely different case about different aspects of patents, so why involve Apple?) in a genuine expert providing independent testimony, then that is possible. However, we should probably wait to see what he says. If it conflicts with his previously declared opinions to favour Samsung then, and only then, we should call him out (especially if he goes back to sit on related cases). However, if it supports and backs Samsung because he is being consistent with previous thoughts and strong opinions then that is why the law firm have chosen him? Read up on him using previous posts' bio links and you'll see there is no conflict of interest - he provides expertise to various bodies already - the whiff of bias and money-tainted opinion is coming from elsewhere!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )