|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 08:45 PM EDT |
I disagree. I think the slimy tactics came from BS&F; we've
seen them in action before.
The worst you can say about Jacobs is he got a little testy
with some of the witnesses on cross exam.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
That isn't so. Really. Be careful not
to categorize individuals by groups. Mr.
Van Nest is known far and wide, from all
I could dig up, and I know how to dig, as
a genuinely nice guy.
As for Mr. Jacobs, he is a fine attorney,
who got thrown to the lions by BS&F, from
all I can determine, and it was BS&F who
framed the strategy, I gather, and then
everyone else would have
to follow the "Good vs. Evil" meme that
David Boies came up with. I'm piecing
together from media accounts, which are
not always right factually, but this
is what I've seen.
When a client wants things a certain way,
that's what happens, within limits. And
did you notice that Mr. Boies seemed to be
disappearing from view after things started
going really sour? Mr. Jacobs had to
shoulder the chosen strategy and look like
it was his loss. I doubt this was his
strategy and I'd guess he probably offered other
ideas and was overruled. I mean, if we are
going to guess, why not guess according to
what we know from past experience?
Jacobs is a good guy who didn't have the
power in this picture to do what I expect
he would have preferred. That's my analysis.
His *firm* was hired, and he's an employee,
just like many of you are, and I'm sure you
sometimes have to do things that you've argued
against as being wrong or stupid technically
and then had to do them anyway. It happens.
It doesn't make you or Jacobs a bad guy. It's
what employees do because they have to.
I watched him closely in the
SCO v. Novell case, where he was running the
show, and he was honorable and honest and
just plain pleasant, even when the other side
was so awful. And when there was posted a
threat that he'd be shot if he showed up to
argue for Novell in the appeal, he showed
up anyway. No. Nobody can talk against Jacobs
on Groklaw without me answering him. He
proved himself to me.
If he was a sole practitioner, you might have
an argument, but ultimately, it's the client
that calls the shots.
So this reflects on Oracle, I'm sorry to say,
because the strategy was ultimately theirs to
agree to or not.
And it makes me sad, actually. I've never
dealt with anybody from Oracle I didn't like
as an individual. And Ellison himself deserves
credit forever for standing up to Microsoft
when others were too frightened to do so.
So I don't really understand fully what went so
wrong, but when I heard David Boies say his
theme was going to be Good v. Evil, and then
watched it play out just that way, I figured
he is more responsible than anyone. I also
thought it was the wrong strategy. Now, there
could be elements that we don't know about, and
I'm just guessing but it's my best guess that
this is what happened.
Lawyers are just like any other category. Some
of them are very nice. Some are honorable and
won't even take a case they think isn't. And
sometimes mean and unethical people go to law
school and graduate and hang up their shingle.
Lawyers are just people.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
