Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:33 AM EDT |
I agree that it seems likely that Tim Lindholm
will testify to pretty much nothing at all of
any substance. He is not a lawyer, he is not
the person making the decisions, he gave his
personal opinion on a complicated matter over
which he was not qualified to make a balanced
judgment, and the email is from a date after
Oracle brought the lawsuit, not before it.
It's like if a key witness in a murder trial
testified to maybe having seen the accused on
the scene of the crime, or at least near it, but
he really didn't look closely enough to be
certain, and the date in question was not the
date of the murder, but a few years later.
It will be a bit bizarre to watch Lindholm's
employer discredit him as a witness during cross
examination, most probably with his full approval.
I fully expect his testimony to be nothing more
than a minor nuisance to Google.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:13 AM EDT |
There is only one question Google will need to ask on cross, that will do
wonders for discrediting his email without discrediting him personally:
"When did you write that email?"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
It gives Oracle a chance to talk about the email. And if they talk about it a
lot, then it must be important, right? And if Google spends time denying that it
is important, then they must be hiding something, right?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ionic on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
It seems to me that Lindholm's email made it on to the record precisely becuase
he's an engineer not a legal person, hence using language that wasn't carefully
though out from a legal perspective and not "addressed" in a manner
that would have allowed it to be privelidged.
I can only assume that Oracle are hoping to take advantage of his legal naievity
on the stand and trick him into making a statement he shouldn't.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
Oracle: Please tell the Court Mr Lindholm, exactly why did you feel that Google
should take a license from Oracle for Java?
Lindholm: Because it was in my
expert opinion as a software engineer, that when someone tries to extort money
out of you with Software Patents, its better to just pay it to make them
disappear rather than rewriting everything from scratch. Of course I am not a
Financial expert, so I would have to defer that actual decision to the Google
business accountants as to whether that is even feasible in this case.
Google: No questions your honour.
--- DRM - As a "solution", it
solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|