
Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013) - alexkon
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/apple-betrayed-by-its-own-law-firm/
======
libertymcateer
> But 35 percent of the company has been quietly controlled by an attorney at
> one of Apple's own go-to law firms, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

In case no one here is aware, this firm has also been in other headlines
recently:

> Lawyers who said Trump has no ties to Russia named Russian law firm of 2016

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/12/law-firm-
rus...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/12/law-firm-russia-trump-
morgan-lewis)

Edit inb4 comments: I am not making any judgments of this firm, or implying
that these things are in any way related. Additionally, as pointed out, this
story is from 2013 and has been settled. It is interesting, however, to see
this old story popping up now.

------
atarian
This was reported in 2013 and the case was settled:

[https://www.law360.com/articles/539708/apple-flatworld-
settl...](https://www.law360.com/articles/539708/apple-flatworld-settle-touch-
screen-patent-suit)

~~~
ChuckMcM
Interesting. Dang, adding a (2013) to the title would be helpful.

~~~
dang
Sure thing. Discussion from 2013:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5806966](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5806966).

------
abruzzi
IANAL, but if Apple can show that McAleese had access to confidential iPhone
data and transmitted that to his wife, or even advised her on her suit (his
advise would be tempered by what he knew of apple's situation), wouldn't that
be grounds for disbarment?

~~~
tbcj
Not necessarily disbarment, but that would be one possible outcome. He will
likely be facing violations of the rules of professional conduct.

Using California and your example, that would violate Rule 3-100. With the
ownership stake, he probably violated Rule 3-300 which governs "Avoiding
Interests Adverse to a Client."

------
netvarun
[2013]

~~~
dang
Added. Thanks!

------
amelius
> Apple, betrayed by its own law firm

Honest question: what is the comma doing in this headline?

~~~
earlyriser
English is not my 1st language. You have 2 options: "Apple, betrayed by its
own law firm" or "Apple was betrayed by its own law firm", you cannot just say
"Apple betrayed by its own law firm".

~~~
schoen
There seem to be different conventions for headlines because they are not
always complete sentences. For example, many newspapers would be fine with
"Man killed by unknown assailant" as a headline, or "Budget increase passed by
legislature", which have the same grammatical structure as "Apple betrayed by
its own law firm".

Edit: oops, but that's _not_ what this headline did. Nonetheless, the headline
seems reasonable to me as a native speaker.

~~~
mcphage
In that case, it should read "Apple betrayed by own law firm", leaving out the
"its"

