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
Yes they were biased. | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Yes they were biased.
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 | # ]

Perhaps even better...
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 | # ]

Google now asking for a mistrial
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 | # ]

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 )