
The lower court concluded he was telling the truth when he claimed he only joined these organizations to stay educated on legal issues. But does that claim hold any water?
Based on reports from Sweden it seems the judge only belongs to groups biased toward stronger intellectual property laws and stricter enforcement. If the goal is to stay educated wouldn't it make more sense to get both sides of the issues?
And how does a position on the board of an organization whose stated goal is "to work for the development, expansion and improvement concerning the protection of intellectual property" make you an unbiased observer?