Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
Isn't this case over? So the current lawyers have no need to continue to
represent Apple or accept another brief, unless there are other on going
matters.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
Apple is still paying them; they'll continue working for Apple. Perhaps they
will increase their rates, but they aren't going to stop working for Apple.
$$$$$$$[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
I think if you look you'll find they've already got new lawyers.
At the previous appearance they had Michael Silverleaf QC arguing about the IP
bit and Lord Grabiner QC arguing about the order with Richard Hacon as junior
Today they had Michael Beloff QC
All are from different barristers chambers except Michael Silverleaf and Richard
Hacon - who both list Samsung-v-Apple on the bios on the chambers website even
though they lost.
Whether they've changed the instructing solicitors or not I don't know.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
The problem comes not from the UK lawyers or barristers, who without exception
know that defying a legitimate court order is a completely unsatisfactory course
of action in the UK (and most other countries too). The problem is that they are
most probably under instruction from Apple's US lawyers, and I have noticed in
other cases too that there seems to be an expectation that what they can get
away with in a US court will also be allowable in the UK. It isn't, never was,
and hopefully never will be, but many US corporations (you all know who is the
worst...) and their legal departments don't seem to understand that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|