|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
Sorry, yes relatively new.
Shocked at the Oracle team being so incompetent (I am trying
to view this in a friendly light rather than deliberate
deception...)
If a hypothetical lawyer is incompetent enough to proceed
with a case fundamentally at odds with the nature of the
evidence s/he is presenting, at what point does that become
malpractice?
I'm guessing such incompetence would mean any indemnity
clauses they put in their own contract would be rather iffy
at best.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
I don't think it is the job of BSF to point out weaknesses in their case. It is
their duty to represent their clients as well as possible. It is the Google's
job to find flaws in the case.
If I were BSF, not wanting something to be found, I would create all sorts of
attention getting things elsewhere.
It is the jury's job to decide truth/false, not the lawyers.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|