|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT |
Outside of Grokaw, when I hear lawyers talk about what can be proven in
court, I hear that pedantic arguing and trying to misrepresent a contract
doesn't get you anywhere. It always sees to come down to what the original
intent is. I actually find it refreshing. What seems odd here and in the SCO
suit is that the opposite appears to be true. Clearly Oracle is trying to
represent the patents in this case differently than they were originally
intended. How is this tolerated? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 09:23 AM EDT |
Just watch as they lie that it is a dynamic issue.
"You heard a Google expert testify that Dalvik *can be*
running whilst the optimisation happens - so the patent
applies".
I am trying hard not to swear or break site / forum rules,
but it is very difficult.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|