Judge Koh shames an Apple employee, makes her promise she would never use an iPhone in court
One of the people that experienced Judge Koh's wrath was a regular Apple staffer, who had been sitting on the front row and nonchalantly using her iPhone during one of the court hearings last week. Apparently, this wrongdoing did not remain unnoticed by Lucy Koh's sharp eye. During one of the breaks, the annoyed judge lost her cool and asked the iPhone-wielding enthusiast to stand up and verbally promise in front of everyone that she would never again use her smartphone while being in court.
Purportedly, Lucy Koh's exact words were: “You. Ma’am. You in the front row!”. More than enough to make most people blush with shame, isn't it?
But why is Judge Koh so firm about smartphone use in her courtroom? See, despite that most courts don't allow any electronic devices, Lucy Koh and the Northern District of California have a more open approach to modern technology – reporters get to use their laptops in order to take notes, while spectators in the court gallery have access to a free Wi-Fi network. Judge Koh is also hooked on the same Wi-Fi network in order to track the real-time transcription of the court reporters.
However, the network kept failing during the first days of the second patent trial, because a big number of people had simultaneously connected to it with their mobile devices. This made Lucy Koh's live event tracker virtually unusable. As she had gotten quite used to her system, the judge interrupted the court session and asked everybody to turn their electronic devices off under the pain of being banned from the courtroom.
The next court sessions were opened by a clerk, who politely asked everybody to switch off their phones, as devices couldn't be left operational even in Airplane mode.
1. deewinc (Posts: 156; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
Hahaha, we already know her. Remember last time she said that Apple's lawyers were high on crack? Then she sides with Apple. Her actions are ironic.
10. Ashoaib (Posts: 1930; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
Yeah, to portray as unbiased these type of steps are required otherwise ppl will see clear biasedness in apple's favour so some actions are required to hide it
9. Finalflash (Posts: 1723; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
That was more the fault of the jury being somewhat biased by the Foreman or whatever he was.
11. true1984 (Posts: 588; Member since: 23 May 2012)
oh yeah the foreman who had a legal battle with samsung. i remember that
2. ArtSim98 (limited) (Posts: 2738; Member since: 21 Dec 2012)
Why does PA always show us that creepy pic of Koh? lol
3. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 2613; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
I think she couldn't use her iPhone 5s (gifted by Apple) in the court, so she's not allowing anybody to use any of the smartphone. ;)
4. shuaibhere (Posts: 1428; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
This what happens even you give away free wifi network...
And if you do the same in india...your data will soon be finished...
15. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5739; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
There is a solution to the judge not being able to monitor transcription progress - turn off the free WiFi. Put a password on the WiFi, and problem is solved.
16. roscuthiii (Posts: 1794; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Even airplane mode would have sufficed for those clerks taking notes, or those accessing files previously downloaded to their devices.
This was just a charade for the benefit of the spectators or that staffer is a complete imbecile.
7. androiphone20 (Posts: 1422; Member since: 10 Jul 2013)
Alternate ending : Judge Lucy continues "Now go stand in the corner and think about your life!"
8. darkkjedii (Posts: 11145; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
That chick has some big ones, to do that in front of a judge.
12. tedkord (Posts: 4722; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Or she's very arrogant and self involved. Or just not very bright.
13. darkkjedii (Posts: 11145; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Exactly, I remember being in traffic court with my nephew, and he got kicked out for taking out his to look up his insurance carriers number. Some judges don't play man. +1
14. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5739; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Or all of the above (arrogant, self-involved and not very bright).