|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
Hmm... you must be relatively new.
BSF have no problem telling a Judge
he said the sky was plaid when the Judge clearly said the sky was blue.
I
know: that's crazy, why would any sane person do that?
All I can say is:
it's a BSF thing. Whatever to say in any given moment to best support your
position. Truth/false are concepts that simply don't play a role. Neither does
anything you've said previously no matter how contradictory.
One has to
stay on ones toes with BSF. If you're shocked that Google didn't catch the
disconnect till 2 days later, how do you feel about the Judge having to be
informed by Google?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
I think this is the reason that BSF is so popular. They take cases where there
really is none, and they don't have any moral issues with not playing fair. They
will take advantage of every little trick 'not in the book', and then some that
are if they think they won't get caught. Footguns are apparently a very popular
pastime at BSF.
I could never work for any company like BSF no matter how
well they paid. Of course IANAL, so that would never happen anyway, so I'm quite
safe from ever having that nightmare.
--- DRM - As a "solution", it
solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT |
BSF knows the truth, the law, the judge, the jury, the
opposing lawyers, the reporters, their customer, and
their legal/extra-legal strategy options.
BSF just does not want anyone else to know. Like master
magicians, they misdirect, misfire, miscue, and misspeak
with a straight face and outreached hand. BSK entertains
you as long as you play their game.
BSF work products are often sloppy, late, and
non-responsive unless the judge sanctions them.
BSF repeatedly interjects falsehoods in the banter by
repeating what has just been presented incorrectly.
Overflowing short term memory, planting false memories,
deliberately refusing to understand/comply, wearing down
the judge, jury, press, and public.
Creating useless makework for opposing lawyers by missing
deadlines and acting in contravention of agreements and
orders. Keep everyone off balance and edgy.
BSF is paid big money and puts on a big show. If you react
at all, they control your emotions and gum up your
intellect.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT |
Before the SCO trial, they got the judge to keep the summary judgement and bench
trial by Judge Kimball from the jury.
In their opening brief they said that something had appeared on the Novell
website 'to this day' which was evidence of continued wilful slander of title to
the copyrights and that was evidence of the period over which the wilful slander
had, and continued to, happen. That affected the damages that were due.
This opened the issue of the judgement and trial to the trial, because the judge
had given Novell reason to believe that they had not slandered the title after
this opinion.
Google have suspected that Oracle were about to shoot off yet another foot when,
in the opening brief, they said that all of Java is fully registered with the
USPTO and is thereby protected by the Constitution. That includes the SSO in the
API.
Then on Monday, they either said that the APIs were not a compilation or that
they were. I'm not bothering to look. The judge seems to have come to the
conclusion that they claimed both things and that they wanted it 'both ways'.
That opened the issue for a Rule 50 Motion.
Clever old Judge Alsup says that he will decide the matter apart from the
current jury work. That way, when Oracle appeal his decision... I beg your
pardon, if either party appeal his decision, it will not affect the crushing
loss to Oracle... I'm sorry, the outcome of the jury deliberations.
These were two very different court cases. I can't help feeling that they have
something in common.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|