|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 06:34 PM EST |
No, if I believed Florian's strange viewpoint and
characterisation of a name on
a letter I wouldn't find it
amusing. However, some of those who were being
astroturfed
with their resultant, almost libellous churnalism have
started to
be a bit more
cautious - even Mac people:
Samsung
denies hiring UK judge who ruled in
their favour - iPad/iPhone - Macworld
UK (though they
still wrongly attribute the "cool" quote.
So, although I
would find it a bit strange if Judge Koh
was
called by Apple, I would not find
it the slightest bit
strange if Apple called Sir Robin Jacob.
IP Hall of
Fame - Robin Jacob
Robin Jacob
(judge) - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
and
The IPKat: From Bench to
Chair: Robin's new career portray him
as a man of
expertise, wisdom and character in the field of interpreting
IP
and it's consequences in the modern world. That
reputation has been impugned by
someone who takes money
and comments on litigation while portraying themselves
as an
"independent" expert. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 06:46 PM EST |
But I can speak for myself. I strongly believe in:
Innocent till proven
guilty!
As a result, if Judge Koh showed up as an expert advisor of some
type for Apple:
I personally wouldn't have any issues.
Why? Because
that fact alone - being in what could be viewed as a conflict of interest - is
not, in and of itself, indication of any kind of wrong-doing.
As a
result, I'd be asking for more evidence to support any wrong-doing accusations,
insinuations or even hints.
As much as I can't stand Microsoft (and I've
had my current pc, a MS code virgin, for some 12 years now) I even stood up and
demanded evidence when someone voiced the opinion MS deserved to be punished
even though there was no evidence of wrong-doing on MS' part in the
situation.
Innocent until proven guilty!
Everyone gets that - no
double-standards issue on my part!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 10:35 PM EST |
Guys, could you bring me quickly up to date on
this story? Using someone other than FM, please?
I am just coming online, and I can't understand
what the big deal is, since he's retired but
gets called in from time to time and he is
advising Samsung's lawyers in the Ericson case,
not the one about Apple.
Why would FM care about that? I mean, he writes
about Oracle and Microsoft cases all the time and
he was hired by both of them.
So what's the scoop here?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
