|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:10 PM EDT |
It's too bad that Van Nest didn't have this in the beginning. I know he'd have
had to use witnesses to introduce this but he could have saved a lot of time.
Or if Judge Alsup had this, I'm sure he would have made short shrift of
Oracle.
JWC
short shrift
noun
1.
a brief time for confession
or absolution given to a condemned prisoner before his or her
execution.
2.
little attention or consideration in dealing with a person or
matter: to give short shrift to (Oracle's) arguments. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
I think this is the best and most competent description of the technical issues
so far. I think your characterization of Oracle's position about name resolution
is correct. Their position is understandable, partially right, but still wrong,
but not so wrong to the point of being in the left field. I love this amount of
nuance. It feels excruciatingly accurate to me.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:50 PM EDT |
It may be that Oracle tried to patent symbolic in general, but there was too
much prior art.
I know the patent office has been busy "helping" them to reduce the
scope of the patent, but I haven't read the whole record. Is it here at
groklaw?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|