Pirate Bay Judge Accused Of Conflict In Another Case As Well

from the oops dept

Wed, May 6th 2009 3:14pm — Mike Masnick

Following the revelation that the judge in The Pirate Bay case may have had a serious conflict of interest, it looks like the Swedish press has decided to investigate some of his other decisions as well. So now they've turned up another recent case (article in Swedish, here's the Google translation), this time involving BMW, where the judge appears to have been connected to the lawyers representing BMW as well. It's not clear how close the connection was, but it does bring into question why a judge, who's in charge of interpreting laws, should be associated with any group that is advocating a specific change in the law -- because it's difficult to see how he could be impartial in any related case.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: conflict of interest, judge, pirate bay, sweden

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

kirillian (profile), 6 May 2009 @ 3:53pm

Clearly so...
Clearly his motivations/involvement/interest HAVE to be called into question, especially in Sweden where, at least according to another commenter (TOC I think it was), a jury by peers is not available. Even if the judge claims no conflict of interest and nothing can be ascertained, it is important that the issue be cleared up, ESPECIALLY as the Pirate Bay case has potential ramifications for consumer rights and our rights as global citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kirillian (profile), 6 May 2009 @ 3:55pm
  
  Re: Clearly so...
  I need to clear that last statement up...the only method that I can see being useful for clearing this issue up is to actually call either a mistrial or allow for an appeal in a higher court. The trial must be redone in order to clear up the issue...otherwise, those of us who are not pro-BIG-Business can't help but wonder if it's just a sham.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 6 May 2009 @ 4:01pm

English summary
Short summary in non-machine English is here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2009 @ 4:02pm

No Need to wonder..
It's always a big sham.. We've been shammed since the day we where born.. All started with umm.. whats his name? Oh yah... God.. That's right.. They've been lying to us our whole lives... The truth will be revealed soon enough though (I hope).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lulz, 7 May 2009 @ 4:24am
  
  Re: No Need to wonder..
  *BANG*
  
  Oh, how I love troll hunting...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2009 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re: No Need to wonder..
    Bastards keep getting back up, though...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eo Nomine, 6 May 2009 @ 4:14pm

"It's not clear how close the connection was, but it does bring into question why a judge, who's in charge of interpreting laws, should be associated with any group that is advocating a specific change in the law -- because it's difficult to see how he could be impartial in any related case."

The Swedish copyright assocation and the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (and its Finnish, Danish and Norwegian counterparts) are not lobbying organisations, but places where *all* IP experts (regardless of whether they represent industry or not) come together. Claiming that a judge is biased in a copyright infringement case because he's a member of a professional association of IP experts is analogous to claiming that a judge is biased because he is a member of a bar association and clearly believes in the rule of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2009 @ 4:39pm
  
  Re:
  The Swedish copyright assocation and the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (and its Finnish, Danish and Norwegian counterparts) are not lobbying organisations
  
  Oh no, of course not. That should be obvious even from their very names, shouldn't it?
  
  Claiming that a judge is biased in a copyright infringement case because he's a member of a professional association of IP experts is analogous to claiming that a judge is biased because he is a member of a bar association and clearly believes in the rule of law.
  
  No, it's more like claiming that someone is interested in sex with boys just because he's a member of NAMBLA. It's a reasonable conclusion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nathan, 6 May 2009 @ 5:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't see what sex toys have to do with NAMBLA. Maybe it would make more sense if you substituted kiddie porn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2009 @ 5:24pm
  
  Re:
  Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property
  
  PROTECTION ?
  
  Yeah, they are not biased ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Swede, 8 May 2009 @ 6:14am
  
  Re:
  "The Swedish copyright assocation and the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (and its Finnish, Danish and Norwegian counterparts) are not lobbying organisations, but places where *all* IP experts (regardless of whether they represent industry or not) come together. Claiming that a judge is biased in a copyright infringement case because he's a member of a professional association of IP experts is analogous to claiming that a judge is biased because he is a member of a bar association and clearly believes in the rule of law."
  
  The Swedish copyright assocation is a part of Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale that has as a requirement for membership that you support the following:
  "Any person or legal entity interested in authors' rights, and not at risk of being influenced into taking up positions that are inconsistent with the principles of literary and artistic property, may make application for membership of ALAI."
  What kind of "open" discussions is possible with such constraint on membership? You are not even allowed to be at risk of listening to arguments from the other side.
  
  If we turn to Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property that is very not just a discussion club. This group is involved in feedback on new laws and is documented to openly argue that that the EU regulations about providers of services on the internet having a safe harbor if they don't know about the crime, should be ignored, and the provider should be held responsible for everything the customer does no matter if they know about it or not. Not by coincident Tomas Norström in the Piratebay case refused the defendants to bring up the binding EU regulations as defense. This is one of the reasons the defendents have appealed the trial outcome to a higher court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2009 @ 6:07pm

Sounds like this judge is more trouble than he is worth. Might as well fire him and hire/elect/appoint a judge that can actually do his job, so he's not impeding people's trials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2009 @ 8:39pm

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA

Sorry, I just knew the whole case was a joke, This just proves it!

Good Job content protectors ....

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]