Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 24 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
Ya gotta love da judge that knows the subject. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Sunday, June 24 2012 @ 10:28 PM EDT |
They will appeal because the judge was knowlegeable of
math, programming, science and statistics.
They will say this is not a "normal person" or a "peer."
They will state that an impartial person is basically one
that is educated solely by the opposing lawyers, and he is
supposed to decide accordingly.
This, of course, is what happens in Jury Selection: choose
the most ignorant (not the dumbest) of the bunch. But, in
this case, the Judge was sharp and knowledgeable, not
ignorant, much to Oracle's dismay.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:36 AM EDT |
Was Norton publicly telling all and sundry that Oracle's case was worthless,
when he reduced the sample size to one?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 08:54 AM EDT |
You have to admit that this requires chuzpe. In particular since the
infringement of copyrights has nothing whatsoever to do with the infringement of
patents. In fact, you can't infringe the copyright of a patent since the whole
point of a patent is disclosure of a method in the form of a text placed in the
public domain (with regard to copyright) in a very specific way.
You can almost equally well say "let's say that we want to be claiming
obscenely incoherent nonsense".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|