|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
A PR person put that up without referring to the legal department ? If true
then Legal must be agitating for another bunch of dismissals, however my
suspicion is that US legal insisted on it whatever UK legal thought. Seems to
fit the attitude in Cupertino. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Word Smiths - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: mtew on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 08:04 AM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: mtew on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- Word Smiths - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
Who represented Apple in Court this morning?
Given the arguments
presented:
A) What apple did was within the ruling
B) Apple needs
14 days to change some text on a single Web Page
Unless you're suggesting
Apple's representation in the UK Court this morning was US Legal Representation
with no UK Barrister, Apple's UK Legal representation is shown to be sharing at
least part of the blame for the situation.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- So if UK representation wasn't involved.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT
- Right... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT
- Right... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- Right... - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- QC - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT
|
|
|
|