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
Lindholm's oprinion was not legal and not expressed to a lawyer | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why is this different from Lindholm?
Authored by: jvillain on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT
Well the judge did say that Oracle can't bring up the email again in the patent
case as they have beat it to death. Reading other news items it smells like the
patent case depends upon Oracle getting that email in again to help confuse
people.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Lindholm's oprinion was not legal and not expressed to a lawyer
Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:21 AM EDT
Did (Judge Alsup) think Lindholm was a lawyer? Why would he allow Lindholm's legal opinion but not Schwartz's?
Since Lindholm's email was not prompted by corporate legal, and not directed to them -- at least, not the .save backup copy that Google released to Oracle in discovery -- then it was not protected by by client-attorney privilege. That it stated what appears to be a legal opinion by a layperson is irrelevant to its admissibility as evidence that there were engineers at Google who thought there might be need for an explicit license from Sun, and that Google management were aware of their concerns.

It goes to state of mind and wilfulness, if the jury buys it. During cross Google can certainly ask Mr. Lindholm if he were an attorney, and probably did.

(/me speaking as element of the set of engineers who are not attorneys.)

---
Real Programmers mangle their own memory.

[ 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 )