decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
8 emails | 396 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
8 emails
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 | # ]

8 emails
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 @ 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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )