Now, it turns out that he might have been biased in an altogether different case, where BMW sued a company called Wheels Spare Parts for making rims too similar to theirs. BMW won; Norström presided over that case, and once again, it turns out he was a member of organizations tied to the prosecutors, which he failed to disclose before the trial started.
One has to ask: is it at all possible that no one noticed judge Norström's ties to the entertainment industry before the Pirate Bay trial has begun? As we've shown in our earlier article, this data is public and easy to obtain. And, if not, is it possible that it doesn't really matter to the prosecutors? Maybe they just wanted a quick and easy win which they can now wave in front of, say, web hosting services, trying to convince them to shut down torrent trackers they're hosting?
I follow politics very, very casually, but I've noticed a certain tactic that always seems to work. There are always several members of any given political party with extreme views, raging at their opponents in every opportunity, accusing everyone of everything and generally being obnoxious. These extreme arguments light the fire of fervent party sympathizers, and are generally good for winning debates in a "loudest person in the room wins" type of way. Once you've won, you can always discard them and say that your party has decided to modernize and get rid of extremism. In short, you need a quick win, with whatever means necessary; you can always clean up later.
In a way, I feel that the entertainment industry is employing similar tactics. Looking only at the Pirate Bay case, you've got a potentially biased judge and a compromised cop. Have they been playing fair? Who knows; none of it really matters now that they've got that big W in their hands.