|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
Yes, 125 was probably originally empty: the subject line contains
"eom," which I assume is "End of Message," or equivalent to
the Groklaw habit of "n/t" to indicate that the subject (title) line
is the entire message. In the case of 125, it's a question, "Anything
useful in yesterday's Sun meeting?"
317 seemed fine to me, but maybe I've just spent too much time in
Outlook-centric corporate environments ;)
The most interesting quote in 317 is probably "Andy [Rubin] is considering
implementing cleanroom JVM," and it may be significant that it was written
by Bill Li who is *not* one of the 3 people in the From/To/CC headers, which
means it *might* be what James Nicolai's tweet ("Rubin refuses to admit an
email with three names in the header written by one of those three people")
was referring to.
I still don't see anything obviously *wrong* with the indentation in 317 or 321.
Selective quoting, sure that's possible; someone changing someone else's text
in a quoted block, can happen all the time accidentally (e.g. overeager
spellcheck) or not. But I can't see anything about the indentation that seems
out of place :(. Hopefully we'll learn something from Groklaw's reporters.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
All of the emails you refer to were produced in the litigation by Google, as
indicated by the Bates stamp on the bottom right corner of each document. I'm
curious why you think Google would alter emails to remove context and/or make
their case worse. The more rational explanation is that the witness was simply
being difficult by refusing to admit the obvious, like Page testifying that he
wasn't sure whether Google ever got a license and that he maybe knew of Lindholm
but didn't really know him. My guess is that jurors will discount the testimony
of witnesses who obfuscate like this and I'm surprised that Google's lawyers
have prepared their witnesses to be so evasive. It makes them look like they
have something to hide.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 8 emails - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 04:24 PM EDT
- To get a groklaw account - Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- 8 emails - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- Fair for Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:32 PM EDT
- 8 emails - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:52 PM EDT
- 8 emails - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
Empty replies are common when the recipient is forwarding the content to
other people who were missed from the To: list. E.g. people who the
content is relevant for, but the original sender might not have known that.
I sometimes do that and just put "FYI" in the body.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|