Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Proven Liars | 52 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Proven Liars

Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 04:27 PM EST

"Apple" are a group of people. The UK counsel did not decide on their
own to tell the high court it would take 14 days to change a webpage, they were
instructed by people at Apple, people whom the company's board gave the
authority to make that decision, have these people been disavowed by the
company? If not the people who are the company called Apple have to share the
description, they lied, ergo they are liars!

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Proven Liars

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 05:05 PM EST

When you use the shorthand of "Apple" and "Samsung", you
may be referring to the counsel of those respective companies.
But I use that shorthand to refer to the corporate beast that
instructs counsel. In this context I understand that counsel
accepts instructions without assigning any value of truthiness.
Should counsel have a priori knowledge that their principal's
instruction is based on obvious falsity, I believe they have an
ethical duty to advise the principal that they cannot proceed
with action in that direction. I have no intimate knowledge of
the respective prior knowledge of Apple, Samsung or their counsels.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Proven Liars

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 06:53 PM EST

It wasn't a lawyer who declared "thermonuclear war".

The top execs at Apple may not keep abreast of every courtroom battle,
but they have demanded the most aggressive approach, even if it
leaves their legal representatives exposed to the court's wrath,
including possible jail time for contempt (UK).

Hasn't Apple created a special in house legal unit to ensure
the most aggressive approach is taken with all these IP cases?

Apple has a long history of aggressively enforcing it's IP.

http://gigaom.com/2012/08/01/ilegal-as-apples-products-evolved-so-did -a-strategy-to-protect-them/

[ 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 )