They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."
Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer. Unless you are still paying him, of course. (sorry nycLawyer)
I think the traditional ire against lawyers is better applied to instances where they foment and churn expensive litigation (e.g., chase ambulances)... not where you pay them to voice your position more eloquently and knowledgably than you could. Moreover, it seems here there's an outside chance that the lawyers just might be voicing their own position...
It may not be the worst movie ever, but it is kinda like releasing a Sherlock Holmes movie where he runs around with a giant gun killing people until he solves the crime. Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
(Mod parent fully 'insightful'). At the same time, though, a broadly entertaining "reboot" like this one can only be good news for Trek fans, who can now reasonably hope that its projected two sequels will recognize those original underpinnings as the only viable (i.e., profitable) direction to boldly go.
Class teaches anyone social skills. Not sure you can learn it, though...
365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year