|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
Q1 should have been decided on Summary Judgement and should never have been put
to Jury
(TBF none of it should have)
and Q3B was written to be biased for Oracle.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
"An assumption that SSO is copyrightable leads, inevitably, to unanswerable
questions."
Judge Alsup, you have my full unfettered permission to use this sentence (now
proven by the jury) in your ruling on SSO copyrightability.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 11:48 PM EDT |
Who from Oracle made the statement contradicting the jury ruling that Google had
proven that Sun/Oracle had engaged in behavior that led Google to believe they
didn't need a license to use Java for Android? And was this made in the trial
or to news media or others apart from court proceedings?
Seems to me statements like this don't do anything to help Oracle's
credibility.
---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|