It could be a case of:
The journalist doesn't have the inclincation to
actually verify facts before presenting them
combined with:
The
deliberate attempt to obfuscate the date the Lindholm email was written on
Oracle's part
It wouldn't at all surprise me if the statement was
structured in such a way as to present something else in the 2006 date time
explicitly identifying the date, then present the Lindholm email and hoping the
Jury will conclude it was in 2006 also.
In other words: it could be an
indication of what Oracle would like the Jury to think and so they presented it
in such a way that a conclusion was drawn that wasn't actually stated by
Oracle.
I sure hope Google's presentation today makes the date on the
Lindholm email clear - but there could very well be a lot more of higher
importance and with the limited time for presenting the opening statement there
just might not be sufficient time for that.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|