|
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
Please post corrections in this thread.
Before offering a correction to PDF transcripts,
check against the original PDF.
A summary of the correction in the title may be helpful.
Thinkx -> Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
"If you want new law, go to Congress and get it to write it and pass it for
you, not to the courts. Thanks. The public would appreciate it very much."
I know bribing politicians is standard procedure for companies who want new
laws, but I thought you believed that the system actually works for the benefit
of the people?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Eh, I don't get it... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT
- no, she didn't - Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- its called democracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT
- PJ, did you just advocate bribing politicians? - Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT
- PJ, did you just advocate bribing politicians? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT
- Theory vs practice - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- So you making an accusation that Oracle bribed Judge Alsup? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- It's unlikely PJ will respond to this - Authored by: matth on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- IGNORE THE TROLL - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
Wow, Larry really needs to take a lesson from Darl.
I seem to recall Darl generalizing that in the conflict between proprietary
software and open source that the entire global economy was at stake. While
saying that he painted open source as some kind of illegal piracy.
I would have expected Larry to shoot higher. Oracle's case is a matter of
galactic importance.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jimrandomh on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
I think courts need to err much more strongly on the side of
forcing
unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs. While Google can
afford to
pay their
costs, many companies that are forced to defendant against bogus IP
claims can't.
When defendants anticipate losing money even if they win,
they're often
forced to settle out
of court, even if they would have won,
denying them a fair hearing.
It's especially bad in patent cases, where
the legal burden of
proving that a patent is invalid
(and thus the expense of
calling expert witnesses and collecting prior
art) falls exclusively on the
defendant. In light of this disproportionate burden, "litigation in good
faith" should not be
sufficient justification for denying costs.
I'd
actually take it a step further, and say that in many patent cases
(but not
this one), where
plaintiffs are shell companies that will dissolve if they
lose, they should
be forced to post a bond
to cover defendant's costs when
litigation begins. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
Wherein we discuss the News Picks instead of the posting.
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
Wherein we discuss other things all together.
(things of interest to Groklaw readers)
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT |
The SSO is the API. You cannot say "structure,
sequence and
organization of APIs".
Moreover, I would be careful of using API in plural
form.
It's a sort of uncountable. Like "interface", or "protocol",
also in the
diplomatic sense. You talk about the
diplomatic protocol, not about
the set of individual
"protocols". That's thay way it's with API too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
Well, the legal costs of Google would have been quite less if Oracle had not
made a sport of ignoring court orders.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
I choked on my coffee when I read the "in good faith" part. All the media
exposure, the statements of "Beeelions", none of that was in any way, shape or
form intended to arrive fair compensation for infringed technology. Nor was it
intended as good faith negotiation. Fair compensation is normally arrived at
skilled and sincere negotiation, not a media circus of hyperbole. Good faith,
hah![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
The Judge will, except for those costs related to the third expert report,
require each party to bear their own costs.
The result is arguably split, Google won some and Oracle won some. He has
indicated disdain for corporate litigation and both parties can afford their
cost. These costs are a drop in the bucket compared to the legal fees and would
not even merit a footnote in the SEC filings.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 07:12 PM EDT |
Oh, it would have been "landmark", all right. As in, "totally
re-arranging the legal climate".
And it was novel. Nobody had ever even suggested that such a theory had legal
validity.
But those two attributes are true of every crackpot, borderline-insane legal
theory that's ever put forth in a courtroom. Those aren't virtues; they're
vices. They aren't reasons why Oracle should avoid paying Google's costs;
they're reasons Oracle should have to pay them.
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|