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
Goolge Happy | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Goolge Happy
Authored by: Christian on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT
Seems that way. But then it doesn't seem like Google really tried to prove
this. Couldn't we have had a single witness from Google say that they saw the
presentations or blog posts talked about during the planning for Android? Or
read the Harmony license?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Goolge Happy
Authored by: jvillain on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT
I was going to make a comment about 4a, 4b as well. I agree that Google should
have stuck some on on the stand to talk about it. I have seen a few issues in
this trial that could have been cleaned up with a one or two liner.

I think the the reason why some of this is getting missed is the compressed time
frame the two sides have to argue their cases. While they amy have had enough
time to argue a simpler case, even the judge is still confused after the
arguments and asking for more. That leads me to believe he didn't give them
enough time.

There is certainly no shortage of fertile ground to use to try an appeal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Goolge Happy
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT
The judge told the jury Question 4 was to advise him on a matter that
he would have to decide.


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

[ 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 )