Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Apple

Judge In Nokia and Apple Lawsuit Owned Apple Stock During Proceedings (appleinsider.com) 31

Posted by BeauHD from the conflict-of-interest dept.
A federal judge was recently found to have owned Apple stock while presiding over a case brought against the tech giant by Nokia, though the discovery is unlikely to lead to further legal action. AppleInsider reports: Apple and Nokia were embroiled in a bitter patent dispute from 2009 to 2011, with both companies filing a series of legal complaints and regulatory challenges as competition in the smartphone market came to a head. The issue was ultimately settled in June 2011, and while terms of the agreement were kept confidential, Apple was expected to make amends with a one-time payment and ongoing royalties. According to a new court filing on Monday, a federal judge presiding over one of many scattershot legal volleys filed by Nokia owned stock in Apple when the suit was lodged in 2010. Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin disclosed the potential conflict of interest in a letter to both parties dated Aug. 27.

"Judge Conley informed me that it has been brought to his attention that while he presided over the case he owned stock in Apple," writes Joel Turner, the court's chief deputy clerk. "His ownership of stock neither affected nor impacted his decisions in this case." 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. An advisory from the Judicial Conference Codes of Conduct Committee explains that disqualifying factors should be reported "as soon as those facts are learned," even if the realization occurs after a judge issues a decision.

"The parties may then determine what relief they may seek and a court (without the disqualified judge) will decide the legal consequence, if any, arising from the participation of the disqualified judge in the entered decision," Advisory Opinion 71 reads, as relayed by Turner. Apple and Nokia are invited to respond to Conley's disclosure by Oct. 27 should they wish to seek redress, though the companies are unlikely to take action considering the case was not a lynchpin in Nokia's overarching strategy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge In Nokia and Apple Lawsuit Owned Apple Stock During Proceedings More

Judge In Nokia and Apple Lawsuit Owned Apple Stock During Proceedings

Comments Filter:

  • If the judge is reporting it now, he probably (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2021 @08:32PM (#61750439)
    Did not realize his ownership of AAPL stock. Maybe it was a managed wealth fund vehicle, a hedge fund basket, or some other financial vehicle that he didn't pay attention to the salient details. IF that is the case, he should be slapped on the wrist, pay a fine, and lets be on our way. If he was reviewing documents in the morning and issuing buy orders in the afternoon for AAPL, he should be removed as a judge, his other rulings should be investigated, and he should receive HUGE fines.

    • Did not realize his ownership of AAPL stock. Maybe it was a managed wealth fund vehicle, a hedge fund basket, or some other financial vehicle that he didn't pay attention to the salient details.

      True, as someone mentioned in the comments of TFA, the Apple stock could have simply been part of a mutual fund. How many of people comb through fund info to check *all* the individual stocks? Admittedly, Apple is one people probably wouldn't fail to notice, but that would imply actually looking and the judge's funds could have been managed by someone else.

      In any case, Nokia won, so they're probably not going to complain much at this point.

    • Certainly. Making it a nothing-burger.

      He won't get fined, at worst he'll get a reprimand. He hardly even participated, since they settled. He may have ruled on some early discovery issues, that's it.

      If it was a direct investment and he didn't report it before, he wouldn't be reporting it now.

      • He hardly even participated, since they settled. He may have ruled on some early discovery issues, that's it.

        That is a very optimistic view. Settlement can happen pretty much at any time during a case.

        Now, I don't know this specific case, but it is possible that Nokia took an earlier settlement offer from Apple after the judge had sent signals that he might rule in Apples favor. In that case his owning Apple stock would absolutely be relevant.

        Once again: I don't know the details of this case so I don't know if that happened. It probably didn't. But saying that it doesn't matter because the parties settled is just

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      I'm not so sure any action is warranted in this case as long as he reported it as soon as he realized (which seems likely). Ultimately, the matter was settled out of court in Nokia's favor.

      Following the forms, Nokia and Apple are entitled to seek redress but there's nothing to seek here. The ownership would have favored Apple had he known, so they have no complaint, and Nokia won in an out of court settlement, so they have no cause to complain.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pimpy ( 143938 )

      This is the most probable scenario. It's hard to argue that he was intentionally trying to profit by influencing the settlement, given that Apple ultimately lost.

    • Saw the statute of limitations was up.

    • You do know that judges are almost never punished when they overstep their authority right? The most that will happen is a reversal by a higher court. Just read an article a couple days ago where, during a routine child support hearing, the judge revoked her custody because she was not vaccinated. During the deposition she was asked and her reply was that her doctors had told her not to take it because prior histories of adverse reactions from vaccinations. So he wasnt punishing an anti-vaxxer, he punished

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        Perhaps the judge didn't revoke custody as punishment but rather out of the best interest of the child?

        Interesting that you have done exactly the same thing you criticize the judge for doing, absent any evidence that the judge actually did that.

        • Go fuck yourself russian trollbot.
          https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
          https://www.google.com/amp/s/t... [google.com]

          Literally dozens of articles to choose from. The two legal exemptions from mandates are 1) medical risk 2) strong religious belief. When she voiced that doing so would be against medical advice, he overstepped his authority. Had she claimed some religious belief and he revoked custody it would have immediately landed in a federal appeals court on constitutional violations. He could have asked for a d
          • Protecting a child from a potentially contagious parent could be reasonable if the child has a compromised immune system, even if the parent is not at fault.
            • If that were true they would already be going through the school records of every parent. I just had a dr visit today. Establishing with a new primary care. She already knew my vaccine status and even saw the booster I went and got on the 20th of August. I was unaware that we are all linked in a state database. So the tools are definitely available to know which parents are not vaccinated. As a side note, apparently a judge is not supposed to rule on issues NOT brought before the court. Since her vaccinatio
              • The usual rule, that judges don't act by themselves, doesn't apply in cases involving children. It's called parens patriae. Basically, the father and mother represent their own interests, not the child's. The court has a legal obligation to consider the interests of a child who isn't old enough to represent themselves in court even if it is against the wishes of both parents.

    • For an honorable judge it is not really an issue and one shouldn't see a conflict in the ruling; but for some lawyers, they will argue against the most secure election ever.

    • Exactly. Judges, lawyers and politicians are best served by someone else independently managing their money as (if they are doing it correctly) they've correctly compartmentalized themselves. People just like to talk sometimes . . .
    • If he has it as part of say an S&P 500 fund or total stock market fund, then there shouldn't be any action taken.

  • Shares Owned (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    >It is unclear how many shares Judge Conley possessed during the case, but ...
    If you don't even know the magnitude of the number, it's not even unclear; just say it's unknown.

  • The judge could simply offer to donate the value of his shares of AAPL stock to some charitable cause in order to make amends.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      That wouldn't make amends. Either his participation skewed the outcome, in which case a judicial response is required, or it didn't in which case he's got nothing to make amends for.

    • That’s fine when you’re a celebrity who makes a public gaffe where no one was specifically harmed, in which case a donation “makes amends” with the public, but not so much when you’re a judge whose decisions can cause specific harm to involved parties. They aren’t made whole by that donation.

  • ...over corporate cases allowed to gamble on financial markets at all? We're not talking about just one case. Politicians also gamble on financial markets. This is a clear case of systemic conflict of interest. In a functioning democracy, this shouldn't be allowed.
    • Should judges who preside over consumer cases be prevented from engaging in consumer markets? Wouldn't they starve to death in unfurnished homes? No, wait, they might have to rule on a case involving home ownership - wouldn't they starve to death in cardboard boxes in alleys and gutters?

      One of the reasons Capitalist-Democratic systems are stable and workable is that all citizens are fully autonomous actors in both the economy and politics. Judges, politicians, police and dog catchers are all consumers,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pimpy ( 143938 )

        There's a difference between being allowed to participate in the stock market, and being allowed to try cases over which someone has a financial interest in the outcome. Surely this is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

      • So are you saying that you don't think there's a conflict of interest or that the conflict of interest should be ignored?
        • In this specific case or generally? In this specific case it looks like a good faith oversight that could not have affected his judgement. In general, it is something we have to watch out for, but you're going too far. You've essentially said that some judges can't have a retirement plan, some judges can't go shopping, some can't get married, some can't drive, some can't inherit or leave a will, some can't enter into any contracts, some can't be employed (tricky), some can't do anything that's regulated

          • In this specific case it looks like a good faith oversight that could not have affected his judgement.

            Is that a fact? What is a fact is that he failed to do the due diligence required of him before presiding over a case in a court of law.

            There's a difference between consuming goods & services & owning & profiting from owning percentages of the companies that provide them. It's a clear & straightforward distinction so your argument doesn't hold water.

    • It's not called "gambling", it's called "investing in the stock market". You know, the vehicle where people with available money support companies develop?

  • It is in the indexes. A major chunk of them. You have retirement savings in the stock market? YOU own Apple too. (Unless you pick the stocks. But the vast majority just have money off their checks put into savings aka passive money streams.)

    • Exactly. Don't even see how this is news. If you're an investor with any diversification at all, you own APPL, either directly or in any number of mutual funds or ETFs. It's almost unavoidable unless you're trying really hard.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Close