3 ms·

> There is no way mlb knew about the nature of this business. I'm not so sure. I can think of several not so implausible scenarios, most of them involving some

> There is no way mlb knew about the nature of this business. I'm not so sure. I can think of several not so implausible scenarios, most of them involving some combination of the following: 1) The parent firm has a silent stake in the troll firm 2) John McAleese truly believed and somehow convinced his partners that he/they wouldn't be implicated in this 3) John McAleese had some sort of leverage over the firm It might not make sense to any of us, but despite that, John McAleese appears to have been employed there as recently as last week, despite his wife operating a company that has openly been trolling around its touchscreen patent for years. It might make sense to them if they thought Apple wouldn't be able to connect the dots or hold them responsible, and/or they had some sort of incentive that outweighed what they perceived to be the potential fallout. I doubt we'll ever learn for sure what the true story was.

DannyBee 13y ago
"despite his wife operating a company that has openly been trolling around its touchscreen patent for years." I'm not sure why this is relevant. It's not like they are Apple's corporate counsel. It seems very odd to expect a law firm to keep track of what it's partners' wives are doing. Particularly since it turns out to be very easy to hide ownership/etc of this kind of thing, in a way that the law firm would never have discovered it.
- hasker 13y ago
  Actually, when entities regulate their employees' trades in public and non-public equities, they typically also require pre-clearance for an member of one's household. At least that was the case for me. As a client paying sometimes in excess of $1,000 per hour, I think one has a right to expect this also.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    FWIW: It wasn't the case for me, even in situations where my trades were regulated :)
- varjag 13y ago
  The law firm was aware of that, it's mentioned in the article.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Citation needed. As mentioned a few times, the article makes a bare assertion that he told the law firm, and it's not clear if this is what one of the people said, the author's personal view, or what.
    - varjag 13y ago
      "One thing that is clear: some at Morgan Lewis knew what McAleese was doing. He told the firm's then-general counsel that the company he invested in was going to sue Apple, and he sent a follow-up note after the lawsuit was filed." Since it mentions people in specific positions at Morgan Lewis and a particular follow-up note, I assume it's the part of proceedings.

DannyBee 13y ago

"despite his wife operating a company that has openly been trolling around its touchscreen patent for years." I'm not sure why this is relevant. It's not like they are Apple's corporate counsel. It seems very odd to expect a law firm to keep track of what it's partners' wives are doing. Particularly since it turns out to be very easy to hide ownership/etc of this kind of thing, in a way that the law firm would never have discovered it.

hasker 13y ago
Actually, when entities regulate their employees' trades in public and non-public equities, they typically also require pre-clearance for an member of one's household. At least that was the case for me. As a client paying sometimes in excess of $1,000 per hour, I think one has a right to expect this also.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  FWIW: It wasn't the case for me, even in situations where my trades were regulated :)
varjag 13y ago
The law firm was aware of that, it's mentioned in the article.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Citation needed. As mentioned a few times, the article makes a bare assertion that he told the law firm, and it's not clear if this is what one of the people said, the author's personal view, or what.
  - varjag 13y ago
    "One thing that is clear: some at Morgan Lewis knew what McAleese was doing. He told the firm's then-general counsel that the company he invested in was going to sue Apple, and he sent a follow-up note after the lawsuit was filed." Since it mentions people in specific positions at Morgan Lewis and a particular follow-up note, I assume it's the part of proceedings.