|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 16 2013 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
And don't think the loser's desire to appeal is lacking...seeing as how the
patents involved were common-sensically invalid.
There's a lot at stake here, and there will be a lot of encouragement for
attempting to win an appeal.
But, as always, let's not let any actual facts get in the way of our pretty
theories!!! Time will tell.
(Christenson)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 16 2013 @ 03:47 PM EDT |
Um, no. EFF submitted an amicus brief. It represented
neither party. You can verify that by looking at the
opening paragraphs right after the header, where all
the lawyers are listed, including the entities that
submitted amicus briefs. None of the amicus briefs
represent anyone.
And if EFF's position is what you mean, it is on the
side of the prevailing party.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 01:14 AM EDT |
>. And the expense of the appeal alll the way to the Supreme Court
may not be covered under the engagement agreement that
lawyers have with their clients.
If the law firm was any good, there would have been a discussion
about SCUSA appeals, before they agreed to represent the client.
Odds are, the retainer agreement includes several clauses related to
SCUSA. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|