Originally Posted by AznDud333
she obviously had a grudge against them
I don't think she has a grudge against Samsung. The is the exact mentality that is wrong with this forum that MrLime pointed out.
-Person rules in favour of Samsung, everything's fine.
-Person rules against Samsung, it's some sort of vendetta.
i dont think she would have taken the job even if they offered her one to be frank
She wouldn't accept $150,000+ as a retirement side job? Join reality dude.
why in the world would a company hire lawyers that wants to ruin them?
Judges don't want to ruin big companies at all, it's them who justify their immensely high salaries. My point was highlighting why -I suspect- they hired him. I didn't mean that Samsung should hire Lucy Koh, you really need to read properly.
Originally Posted by Crazy9000
The problem with allowing this is you are opening the door for rampant legal corruption. Now all Samsung has to do is offer every judge that rules in their favor a lucrative position, and they are legally bribing judges. Sure it won't work on every one, but just working on one could make the difference in billion dollar (or pound
) settlements. That meets your requirement of never actually communicating anything to the Judge beforehand, while still leading to a corrupted system. The only way to prevent this is to block judges from working for companies that they've been involved in "high profile" cases for. I am sure the judge will not go hungry if he can't work for Samsung.
Because they've already having shown themselves doing that, it's a form of assumed bribery almost to those involved. They don't even have to be offered the job, they can just see that it's happened before and think that their ruling may result in a fortune in a year or so.