Apple lawyers claim Samsung lawyer's 'jihadist' comparisons are making talks difficult, Samsung says Apple's being difficult


Apple vs. Samsung: The smartphone war summarized


Shocker: Samsung obfuscated dismal tablet sales


Court overrules Samsung's objection to Apple-highlighted video explaining patents to jurors


Apple sanctions Samsung for sharing confidential data, then releases it anyway


Why Lenovo could be a far bigger threat to Samsung than Apple


Jury says Samsung owes Apple another $290 million


Apple vs. Samsung: Secrets allowed!


New survey says 3 times as many Samsung users switch to iPhone than the other way around


The iPhone 4 row continues: South Korea decries 'protectionist' U.S. government


How the ITC ignoring Samsung's FRAND-abuse forced a veto in Apple's favor


Obama administration overrules ITC ban on iPhone 4, iPad 2

Samsung's S Voice likes to think it's Siri

Samsung design video: High on lifestyle companionship, low on rationale for cheap plastics

Hands-on: iPhone 5 vs. Galaxy S4

On the eve of Samsung's Galaxy S4 event, Apple's Phil Schiller repeats that Android is fragmented, lacks integration, offers poor experience


Judge vacates $450 million in damages from Apple vs. Samsung, orders new trial to re-determine amount

Samsung re-starts copier, announces Passbook for Galaxy devices


Apple's request for import ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus rejected


Apple supposedly contracting TSMC to produce A6X processor

< >

UK appellate judge that ruled for Samsung now consults for them

UK judge that ruled for Samsung now consults for them

Sir Robin Jacob, one of three appeals judges that upheld the ruling forcing Apple to publicly apologize to Samsung in UK newspapers, is now being paid as an expert by Samsung. Only four months after the ruling, Jacobs is named as one of nine experts on a submission of protective order subscriptions, which are steps Samsung will take to ensure that it complies with the ITC’s confidentiality rules in a case brought against Samsung by Ericsson. Florian Müller of Foss Patents says:

I'm sure that Samsung and Sir Robin Jacob wouldn't be doing this if there was any risk of this conduct violating the law. 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 less than four months later.

So while it might be ethically dubious, there’s nothing technically wrong with it. Still, it certainly doesn’t sit right.This sort of practice is certainly not uncommon for a retired public official. Jacobs would not be a paid expert for Samsung unless everything was completely legal. However, rightly or wrongly, it could be seen as sending a message that corporate paydays await. Imagine the judge who awarded Apple $1 billion in damages from Samsung later got hired as a consultant by Apple. While not exactly parallel, the media outcry would no doubt be enormous.

What do you think, should judges that rule on a case be allowed to consult for the winning party after only a few months? Should the length of time be longer to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?

Source: Foss Patents

Have something to say about this story? Share your comments below! Need help with something else? Submit your question!

Joseph Keller

Joseph Keller is a news reporter for iMore. He's also chilling out and having a sandwich.

More Posts



← Previously

How to delete individual call records from Recent Calls on your iPhone

Next up →

YouTube for iOS updated, can now send video to your TV or game console

Reader comments

UK appellate judge that ruled for Samsung now consults for them


It doesn't matter what side of the pond you are on. All courts/are corrupt; some more than others. This is just par for the course.

It is disturbing when someone with the power to rule in a case like that takes a job from the winner. It certainly gives the appearance of impropriety...even if it is legal. No, a judge in that position should have to wait a reasonable amount of time before accepting money from the litigator to whom he awarded a win.

It certainly does seem fishy...though, given his paid history with Oracle and failure to disclose it before, during, and after the Oracle-Google trials until found out by Groklaw readers, Florian is hardly the one the cast any ethical stones.

Aaaaand, here come the haters, pointing to this as "suspicious activity" when this is nothing compared to what happens in some other courts, probably even those that ruled in Apple's favor.