5 ms·

I really don’t think how much ownership is the real question now. 1. The judge disclosed it. Presumably he wasn’t doing anything sneaky because he is the one

by Nbox9 5y ago

I really don’t think how much ownership is the real question now. 1. The judge disclosed it. Presumably he wasn’t doing anything sneaky because he is the one raising the issue. 2. Any ownership required the Judge to recluse himself. Thus (3) 3. (The real takeaway) The verdict of the case between Nokia and Apple is on much less strong legal grounds now. This is the real point.

timy2shoes 5y ago
> Any ownership required the Judge to recluse himself. Where does this requirement come from? Citation please.
- Nbox9 5y ago
  > It is unclear how many shares Judge Conley possessed during the case, but ownership of company stock in any capacity would have required his recusal under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The apple insider article.
  - arcbyte 5y ago
    Only if ownership of the stock was substantially affected by the outcome of the case. Which gets back to OP's point of needing to know more specifics of the judge's holdings.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >but ownership of company stock in any capacity would have required his recusal under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. So, most judges? I assume they tend to be high net worth individuals, so it's very likely they own APPL in some capacity in their stock portfolios and/or retirement funds.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  The Code of Conduct for United States Judges[1] Canon 3(C)(1): > (C) Disqualification. > (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: > … > (c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding; The interesting (IMO) tidbit here is the “knowledge” aspect of the canon. Presumably the Judge was unaware of their investment (rather than unaware of their ethical obligations) and, by my reading at least, where they had no knowledge of their financial interest they had no obligation to recuse. Although I do think it’s reasonable to expect Judges to conduct a conflicts check prior to hearing a case that would involve making themselves aware of any interest they might have in the public companies appearing before them. [1] https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#d https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-unit...
qeternity 5y ago
> 2. Any ownership required the Judge to recluse himself. Thus (3) Probably a typo but recuse != recluse

by Nbox9 5y ago

timy2shoes 5y ago

> Any ownership required the Judge to recluse himself. Where does this requirement come from? Citation please.

Nbox9 5y ago
> It is unclear how many shares Judge Conley possessed during the case, but ownership of company stock in any capacity would have required his recusal under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The apple insider article.
- arcbyte 5y ago
  Only if ownership of the stock was substantially affected by the outcome of the case. Which gets back to OP's point of needing to know more specifics of the judge's holdings.
- gruez 5y ago
  >but ownership of company stock in any capacity would have required his recusal under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. So, most judges? I assume they tend to be high net worth individuals, so it's very likely they own APPL in some capacity in their stock portfolios and/or retirement funds.
elliekelly 5y ago
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges[1] Canon 3(C)(1): > (C) Disqualification. > (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: > … > (c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding; The interesting (IMO) tidbit here is the “knowledge” aspect of the canon. Presumably the Judge was unaware of their investment (rather than unaware of their ethical obligations) and, by my reading at least, where they had no knowledge of their financial interest they had no obligation to recuse. Although I do think it’s reasonable to expect Judges to conduct a conflicts check prior to hearing a case that would involve making themselves aware of any interest they might have in the public companies appearing before them. [1] https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#d https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-unit...

qeternity 5y ago

> 2. Any ownership required the Judge to recluse himself. Thus (3) Probably a typo but recuse != recluse