|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
Very simple.
Has Oracle proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
Google directly infringes? Of course not...
Oracle has not proven it has the greater weight of the
evidence than Google.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
I think a group of 12 honest people would be able to tell which expert is most
straightforward and honest.
Here we have two experts one says it doesn't infringe one says it does.
The only real question is which one do they believe more.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
Google's expert, Dr. August, told the truth. Oracle's expert, Dr. Mitchell,
told lies. He said a numeric index could be a symbolic reference. He said the
numeric index in the iget bytecode was a "name".
Dr. Mitchell's statements under oath were a textbook example of "materially
false and misleading".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT |
You are all responding based on your knowledge of the subject matter. You are
correct in that someone who does understand the material can pick who is telling
the truth and who is twisting it.
My point is that the average juror does not have that background. Imagine you
are a juror listening to highly technical testimony on a subject in which you
had little understanding. You could hear from two experts, but convincing in
their presentation but one telling the absolute truth and one telling bare-faced
lies. If each testimony was presented in an equally professional manner and even
the bare-faced lies were made to sound plausible, how could you tell who was
telling the truth? What is worse would be if the one who is telling the truth is
a little nervous such that the cross-examining lawyer can make him sound shifty
or uncertain, then the liar will be the one whose testimony shines.
Of course, no one who enjoys his freedom would tell bare-faced lies on the
stand. This only adds to the problem in that his testimony will contain enough
truth to stay out of jail with enough twist to support his employer's case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|