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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|