A&O and McDermott to reveal costs before trial

  • Print
  • Comments (7)

Readers' comments (7)

  • Keep your oar out

    If RIM are happy with a giant bill, I can't really see that it's anyone else's place to stick their oar in. Am I missing something here?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Keep your oar out

    Yes, you are missing something. The cost of litigation in London is spiralling out of control, and headline figures of £6m for A&O's costs will frighten potential litigants from either taking action or using London to do so.

    Also, such vast amounts may be OK if their own client's paying, but not if the opposition's being dumped with them. Lawyers' notorious greed must be reined in, and the courts are the ones to do it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A win is a win!

    Your not missing anything - why is the bill from A+O under any speculation at all - as far as RIM are concerned, this is a huge commercial victory and at the end of the day it will help save them market share, the uniqueness of their product in this market and ultimately UK profits dwarfing the £6M legal cost.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Troll-tastic Gravy Train

    Headhunter's also missing something (and probably works for A&O). I

    f you look at the costs judgment, you'll see that RIM itself conceded that the patent it had spent £6m to save (it lost two other patents - so more of a loss than a win) was of little commercial value. The patents in suit in the UK had (I think) nothing to do with the action RIM settled in the US for hundreds of millions of dollars. Money down the drain. (And, no, I don't work for TW or MWE)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Corrections & Apologies

    Oops - just checked, and RIM spent £6million in revoking Visto's patent, and not in saving its own patent.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • a win is never just a win

    Headhunter is still missing something: it is one thing when a client is happy with a bill and is prepared to pay it, as may be the case in transactional work. It is quite another when the costs are awarded to one side as part of a judgment because the other side had lost the argument.

    When one side spends 10 times as the other just because the lawyers are more expensive, it creates a massive disincentive to ever sue any big company in England, because of the financial risks involved (even when you win, because you can still gets costs award against you).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • counsel's fees

    does the £6m include counsel's fees? If so, (and even if not) how much did they amount to?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (7)