decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple Isn't a Single Entity | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
True, but that will come back on Apple
Authored by: jesse on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 08:16 AM EDT
If it is totally thrown out - and look like (even if they didn't) they
deliberately corrupted the jury.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Isn't a Single Entity
Authored by: dobbo on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 10:53 AM EDT
I would have thought that Apple's lawyers would have seen
the problems with the verdict as quickly as we and others
have. I therefore doubt that they were that pleased.

But middle management types in Apple, as well as the
marketeers and other types that were not privy to
conversations with the lawyers, did see this as a total
victory. I'm sure they loved making hay while the sun
shone. So did, for that matter some of the
Apple press.

But what I find encouraging is that not all the Apple sites
I've visited are happy with this victory. They also seam
worried that this has caused Apple to become a litigator
rather than an innovator

What would be best for all is if Apple were to return to
building products that people want to buy. But to do that
they need someone in charge that can see the whole picture.

I've worked for a company that stumbled as it grew. The
fault was the MD's - he was an engineer first, and that is
where he concentrated most of his efforts. When the board
finally ousted him and brought in a generalist from outside
that is when the company started to turn around and get back
to it's winning ways.

We were a high-tech company too, prided ourselves on it.
But there is more to running a company than just getting the
engineering right, one needs to get all aspects of the
company working at their best, financial, legal, all parts.
That is what I am worried about for Apple now - it's
seams to be concentrating on the legal side way too much -
the iPhone 5 is a catch up device.

But then maybe that is part of the process too, when you get
too big, innovation becomes more difficult to spot. That
would be a problem for Google too I guess.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )