|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:54 PM EST |
You are seriously missing the point here.
I have to assume by "the UK decisions" you are speaking of
the recent decision re: the notice posting? So a few points
can be made:
1. Personally, the original notice was an exercise of
chutzpah. I am quite sure it was cleared by counsel, but I
was surprised that they did so. It was not "lying". It was
an extremely poor decision.
2. The request for time to post a new notice was pretty
standard in this sort of context (to get it through the
various layers of approval, etc.). At any other time, it
would be unremarkable, but was only an issue because the
court was already pissed off.
3. In the context of the US litigation (which I am much more
familiar with), the conduct of Samsung (since you want to
attribute conduct of counsel to the company) has been
egregious in many instances, and resulted in measurable
sanctions. Moreover, the conduct of Samsung itself in both
this litigation and in prior litigation formed the basis for
some sanctions (re: discovery).
4. Again, in the context of the overall litigation, this is
a tiny thing that should never require court involvement.
Y'all are letting your confirmation bias cloud your
judgment. "Apple" is not evil, "Samsung" is not evil, and
companies can't lie.
Just people, who blindly support companies.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
