|
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
>>[PJ: Wow. I wonder if this means Oracle can't prove it
>>actually owns the 37? That's one of the requirements to
>>prevail on a copyright infringement claim. As
>>we now see, this isn't just some "technicality".]
But, if this is true... You don't mean to suggest that SCOX' case was pure
horse-hooie, do you?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: vb on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
When a witness says "I assumed", it really reflects poorly on their
expertise.
my $.02[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I assumed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:35 PM EDT
- I assumed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 09:47 AM EDT
- I assumed? - Authored by: w30 on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 12:20 AM EDT |
...and the judge was at first inclined to ignore the
registration problem
because of that, then decided to reserve
judgement. Now this I don't
understand, because he clearly
could have just held Google to their earlier
stated position.
Would that outcome be because "registration" is different
than "ownership"? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|