|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 03:11 AM EDT |
Exactly my reaction. Apple are in a lose lose stuation where any response is
damaging and it stems from arguing a point they should simply have accepted that
Samsung could not reasonably have known about the juror.
This makes me wonder about the strategy of arguing every point and every
conceivable avenue even when many clearly stand no prospect of success verus
only making arguments that have some chance and are in some sense reasonable.
IANAL but is there an acceptance amonsgt lawyers that they should argue every
point never mind how fatuous the argument or does this annoy judges and is it
counter-productive?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
See here:-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/03/drug_theft/[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|