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
Engineers talking about the law | 396 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Engineers talking about the law
Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
As far as I know the Oracle lawyers didn't object. But Lindholm may be recalled.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Was that a tactic?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
One interesting idea I just had was that Google knew that Oracle would object to
that, but that even going through the motions of having them object would put in
front of the jury that these people are not lawyers and they were making
business decisions, not legal ones.

After all, Google had their lawyers check out all the legal stuff, not their
engineers. So hopefully they can point back even to Oracle's own objections
when they fight over things like willfulness. At least, that's how I'd use
their objection. I mean, it's still part of the record, right?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Engineers talking about the law
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT
So an engineer's belief in whether or not he thought a license was
necessary is inadmissible? Because it might disclose a presumption
of innocence on his behalf and therefore kill the plaintiff's chances
of proving willful infringement with greater penalty? Something there
doesn't fit my notion of natural justice, that's why IANAL...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Perhaps Google wanted Oracle to object
Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:49 PM EDT
If Oracle objects, stating that a lawyer has to determine license issues,
they've shot another foot, haven't they?

Maybe Google held their tongue, waiting for Oracle to object their own testimony
away?

---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.

[ 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 )