So that it's clear when the comment is deleted: the grandparent comment suggested without any evidence that the Judge "must" have shares in Apple because she worked in a law firm that worked for them.

Given that PJ polices comments pretty clearly and so can't claim to take no responsibility for them; I think she must delete that. Even if someone did provide proof later, this still comes across as mere speculation and is totally inappropriate.

Most people; almost all judges; would declare if they, or their family, owned Apple shares before getting involved in such a case. If we just knew she worked for a law firm that worked for Apple then it might be reasonable to say "she probably had shares". However, once we know that she worked on the case about Apple that becomes very unlikely. Once we know that share ownership is traceable and that she would likely understand that hiding it would be a big personal risk that becomes extremely unlikely.

From the way the judge does seem to have an anti-Samsung bias. There are many other ways to explain that. She's a Korean-American. This suggests that her family have tried Korea and couldn't make it there. Probably, through them, she will have a bad perception of Korea and maybe have heard stories about how things work there. Stories that will come from a completely different and much worse era and social situation from the normal Korean experience.

Another possibility is simply that working for her law firm she heard bad things about Samsung from Apple colleagues. I would expect most judges to be able to overcome that but maybe case handling problems meant she just failed to?

Nothing here needs to suggest corruption. Interestingly this bias may well work in Samsung's favor because of the jury manipulation which would probably still have happened but which we would never have heard as much about if the judge had been more careful in instructing the jury to be fair to Samsung.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]