|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
Counter productive..? Are you kidding??
The partners will say, nay, insist, that billable hours be maximised by arguing
every comma. Twice if possible.
It's highly productive.
For the lawyers...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nematoad on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 04:58 AM EDT |
You make an interesting point. Who is actually driving this case?
It must be Apple as they are the paymasters but surely it is the duty of the
lawyers to point out to Apple that any proposed action may have adverse results,
as in this case.
These lawyers are officers of the court and it must be part of their
responsibilities to point out to their client that wasting judicial resources is
probably not a good idea and may influence the judge against them.
Jobs' threat to go "thermonuclear" on this matter is a sharp reminder
that people in such positions of power have a duty to use the resources made
available to them by the owners, (the shareholders) in a prudent manner.
This is not happening in this case and although the share price is high if I
were a shareholder I would be concerned about the apparent misuse of my money.
So, although it maybe in the short term interest of the legal firms to prolong
the proceedings it may not turn out to be such a good idea in the end. The word
barratry comes to mind thinking about this case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 05:16 AM EDT |
I think that in this case Apple tried the 'lookat the Wookie' strategy - and
Samsung didn't.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
