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
Which email? | 396 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Which email?
Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT
I looked through various accounts of the testimony and glanced
at the PDF, also coming up empty as to what is referenced.

It sounds like an email reply chain, where a lot of "> > "
type indents might once have given an impression as to who is
replying to whom, etc. The picture I made was that these, or
the rich-text equivalent (vertical lines at the left margins)
had been omitted or were otherwise "off", making it difficult
to know what was being said by whom.


---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

8 emails
Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT

Exhibits 11, 12, 125, 212, 213, and 222 have quotes from Rubin which are indented because it's not Rubin's email. A couple of those contain no meaningful content except Rubin's.

317 and 321 are emails from Rubin which also contain nested, quoted emails from Rubin as quoted by others.

317 is particularly confusing, as it contains a nested chain of quoting that goes eight deep.

Any of those could have been a case of selective quoting, where the person who replied to Rubin innocently snipped off parts that he didn't think were relevant to the current discussion. (Something I do all the time, though I admit it's a more common habit among people like me who don't use the horror that is top-quoting.)

125 is the most bizarre, as the thread seems to start with an empty email from Lindholm, which was followed by a response from Rubin. Did Lindholm really send an empty email?

There's also the fact that Oracle seemed to have problems with their exhibits on the first day of trial. Maybe this was a related issue. Maybe what they offered in court didn't match what's in the PDF? We don't know. All we really know is that Rubin complained and the judge didn't overrule him.

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • 8 emails - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
  • 8 emails - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 03:52 PM EDT
  • 8 emails - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT
Which email? TX21
Authored by: mirrorslap on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 08:51 PM EDT
Andy Rubin wasn't dodging. His demeanor suggested to me that he was very
concerned about whether what was in front of him was "doctored" or
not. He
chose to take the truthful course.

[ 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 )