Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
The court is not there for setting the rules. It is for making sure
the existing rules are heeded.[emphasis
mine]
It seems quite relevant to me to show what the position of
Sun was at the time that Google was negotiating with them about using Java. As
you point out the court should ensure that the existing rules
are followed. It should not allow a plaintiff to rewrite history and pretend
that it never held a contrary position.
This whole case smacks of opportunism
and "sour grapes" on the part of Oracle... Google seems to be doing well in the
market place, let's try to get a piece of the action. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
I was going to put in a joke comment about PJ ruining such a
great CREATIVE effort by BSF AND Oracle by bringing up those
dirty, rotten, nasty FACTS, thus ruining the economy, and the
economy NEEDS creative efforts in order to survive, and
think of all the kids...
But I see that someone beat me to it, although without the
/humor tags that I was going to put in. :-(
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
Your post is equivalent to "Estoppel should be abolished because companies
should always have the right to change their mind for business reasons".
That's pretty funny. Perhaps you haven't pondered whether rewriting history is
equitable for those affected by a company's earlier actions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
Because it sure brought out the trolls!
Wonder which evil conspiracy feels threatened today?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Troll? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:51 AM EDT
|