10 ms·
Something about Koh's overwhelming bias for Apple seems really suspicious. It's one thing to preeminently ban sales of product A for reason X, but to also ban
by shawnee_ 14y ago
Something about Koh's overwhelming bias for Apple seems really suspicious. It's one thing to preeminently ban sales of product A for reason X, but to also ban sales of product B for reason Y where products A and B have the same parent, and where reasons X and Y are completely unrelated? Something is wrong with this picture.
What else could be going on? Maybe I have a cynical view of humanity, but I spent a few minutes digging to see if I could find anything on requirements for District Judges to release tax returns (as they are essentially public officials, right?). Couldn't find anything on that, but generic salary data is available: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/js_3.html http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/js_3.html
$175K is probably rather low when you're used to working in the high-stakes world of patent litigation.
It'll be interesting to investigate this with more depth. ( Another interesting / related read: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/local/me-judges-pay27 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/local/me-judges-pay2... )
- raganesh 14y agoIf you are accusing her of bribery, that is a very serious allegation. Imagine if such a thing happens and is eventually exposed. What a scandal would it be. I don't think any large company, let alone Apple, would want to be involved in any such mess.
- wtvanhest 14y agoIt is completely reasonable to investigate bribery where there is a perceived unreasonable decision and a heavy financial motive. Individuals working at large companies do bribe people in a variety of situations. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/business/wal-mart-bribery-scandal-complicates-us-expansion-plans.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/business/wal-mart-bribery-...
- raganesh 14y agoOkay. Let me qualify my point. I find it hard to believe such a high profile bribery can happen in the US (the article you have posted is a case of bribery by an American company in Mexico). And given Apple's profile and a lot of entities already pursuing their case (ex: NYT's iEconomy series), they would never do such a big blunder.
- wtvanhest 14y agoThe reason it is hard to believe is that people question decisions like the one made and are willing to investigate without government help. While it is unlikely, it should still be questioned.
- mechnik 14y agoAbe Fortas of Gideon's Trumpet fame resigned from the U.S. Supreme Court following ethics allegations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_Trumpet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_Trumpet
- davidpayne11 14y ago1) Looking at your previous comment, you are an Apple fanboy. So you probably know NOTHING about what's happening here and you just want to support apple for Fuck's sake. 2)You don't live in the US. So keep your hard-to-believe's to yourself. 3) Read 1) again.
- acchow 14y agoRemember the Kids for Cash scandal?
- its_so_on 14y agoHe didn't investigate it. He said, "here's what I did" which fell far short of any investigation. He had no reason to post how far he got along in his little dirt digging campaign.
- mtgx 14y agoI don't know about this case, but I think ITC has been suspiciously anti-Google for the past few patent cases. In almost every single instance they've ruled in favor of Apple or Microsoft, and against Google.
- Terretta 14y agoIt's almost as though the findings are not a random glitch.
- cooldeal 14y agoConfirmation bias? http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/05/xbox-itc-motorola/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/05/xbox-itc-motorola/ That's a big one.
- greyfade 14y agoSetting aside your confirmation bias, I'll point out that Google haven't themselves brought these patent cases to the ITC in the same number or with the same force as have Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else. Google has filed fewer cases with a smaller patent portfolio.
- vidarh 14y agoYou mean largely against non-US companies that wants to sell Android handsets on the US market. If we posit that these decisions are biased rather than just an effect of the broken US patent system, I think it's more likely that the ITC is merely pushing a protectionist agenda that is being enabled by having somewhat plausible complaints from US companies than that there's somehow corruption going on.
- neya 14y agoThere's a valid point in his statement. Its just that you haven't thought about it deeply yet. A dozen OEM's including HTC, Samsung and the rest, have about a 50 phone models in total (assume 50 for simplicity). Atleast one phone model from these OEM's is under litigation and/or have been banned w.r.t patents. Apple, is a single company with just 2-3 phones and NONE of these phones have been banned yet. This must mean 1) ALL the phones, with various flavors of Android are some how violating Apple's patents OR there is something unfair happening here. The possibility of about 50 (remember, we're assuming 50 is for simplicity) phone models violating a single company's patents is just ridiculous. This must mean these makers of these 50+ phone models haven't thought about these patents OR it clearly means something unfair is happening. To assume, these WELL-EXPERIENCED (Eg: HTC) Phone makers of these 50+ models haven't thought about these patents is plain stupidity, which leads us to the conclusion, there's something unfair going on.
- clarky07 14y agoOr it could be that android is violating lots of patents, and the common thread is they are all making android phones. Note that they are also all paying Microsoft. It seems the common thread isn't apple and Microsoft doing something wrong, rather it is android.
- neya 14y agoMost of these companies even manufacture Windows Phones, so it makes sense to license them with Microsoft (Eg: HTC, LG). And, the patent that Microsoft is suing OEM's with is related to ActiveSync. While Apple is ridiculously suing these OEM's for other pretty trivial patents which are not related to anything like ActiveSync. So, Apple and Microsoft are not on the same track as you think.
- raganesh 14y ago>>the patent that Microsoft is suing OEM's with is related to ActiveSync Can you provide citation for the above? As far as I know, neither Microsoft nor any of the Android H/W manufacturers have revealed any details on which patents are covered as part of the licensing agreement.
- vibrunazo 14y agoCorruption isn't as straight forward simple as Hollywood movies make it out be "Here take this dollars and do this for me". It's usually a complex net of interests and favors trading, that's really hard to prove. Maybe someone at apple just happen to contribute to someone's political campaign, who is proposing legislation that just so happens would benefit the judge's family business. This level of corruption happens every day, everywhere in the planet. People are trading favors as we speak.
- sliverstorm 14y agoThe part that makes it difficult, is where exactly do you draw the line between "trading favors" and "corruption"?
- nsns 14y agoMaking a legal decision based on your own personal gains and not the data?
- its_so_on 14y agoThis isn't a corrupt country (there is a specific list of corrupt countries, this is a pretty objective statement.) It makes 0 sense for you to post "how far you got" as you didn't get anywhere.
- koide 14y agoThe fact that a country as a whole is relatively non corrupt doesn't say anything about specific people and their corruptibility. Also, the U.S.A. is number 24 of around 180 countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index and appears below countries such as Bahamas, Chile or Qatar.
- its_so_on 14y agoI mean that it's unheard-of for judges to be literally bribed as this implies. This guy is posting his research digging things up - a very interesting read: if he had found anything! But he didn't. The steps he took are worthless and don't deserve so much as a mention. This would be like me googling your username and some illegal activity, finding that I couldn't find your username on any forums dedicated to that illegal activity, "but still." Come on. The steps I took are worthless and aren't worth mentioning.
- vidarh 14y ago> I mean that it's unheard-of for judges to be literally bribed as this implies. Not really. It may be unusual, but unheard of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
- mc32 14y agoI'd be a little skeptical of an index which shows Japan as being relatively less corrupt than the US. If one were to read up on Japan, it's clear that for a first world country, it's rather corrupt --not the same way, say Indis is corrupt, but still, I feel more so than the US, specifically. Dogs and Demons (A. Kerr) is filled with instances how corruption has contributed to massive misallocation of resources, coverups of environmental contamination, political favoritism, cronyism, etc. resulting in the paralysis which afflicts Japan.
- sjwright 14y agoApple isn't doing anything Motorola or Samsung haven't done. The only difference is the judge's decision. #BoycottJudges!
- dhughes 14y agoAFAIK Apple is the only mobile phone corporation who refuses to pay Motorola a royalty for the fundamental patent of a "portable hand-held telephone device".
- runjake 14y agoGood? Because that seems absurd.
- admiralpumpkin 14y agoReason: Motorola refused to offer them Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms; unlike the terms given to the rest of the licensees.
- dhughes 14y agoBut legally does that matter? Can a corporation pick and choose what patents/royalties or whatever they are to pay for if you use them just because the corporation deems it to be unfair?
- sjwright 14y agoAbsolutely, yes. And the other side is allowed to sue in court.
- admiralpumpkin 14y agoYes. It does. See recent case which was thrown out because they were trying to leverage FRAND patents inappropriately.
- raganesh 14y agoLet's talk about that in context. Motorola contributed some patents to a mobile telecom standard; they made a commitment to license these standard essential patents in Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms to everyone who wants to build a "portable hand-held telephone device". Motorola wants 2.25% of the sale price of each Apple device in which the standard is used. Now, if each patent contributor to the standard demands the same rate as Motorola, the outgo will be above 100%. Essentially, only those who have contributed to the patent pool can build a mobile phone. No one else can enter the market. How is that Fair, Reasonable or Non-Discriminatory? That is why there is talk about EU & FTC in US investigating Google/Motorola for anti-competitive behavior. Also, there is another interesting point here - all these patents are implemented in the baseband chip built by Qualcomm and used by Apple in its devices. Qualcomm has already paid the royalty for using Google/Motorola's patents. Now Motorola wants royalty from Apple also, for the same patents. Double-dipping anyone?
- jsz0 14y agoWhat else could be going on? Maybe Apple's case/patents are legally stronger than a lot of people are willing to admit?
- beedogs 14y agoI doubt that, since they keep losing in courtrooms around the world.