|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 02:21 AM EDT |
Two things. We here at Groklaw read the same
documents, but we didn't write breathless reports
about how much money Oracle might win, because
we know the US legal system, and what you ask for
in a complaint is always the upper limit of what
you can ask for, because later you can't get more
than what you asked for, normally. As in all things
legal, there are footnotes. But that's why you see
such huge numbers in complaints.
But nobody believes, or nobody I know belives, those
numbers are how it will all play out. It's just
the way you file. So we didn't get all excited
about how it might play out like that, because
it was ridiculous.
Yes, Oracle said it, but that doesn't make it
likely. Part of analyzing a document is knowing
what the lay of the land is, so you know what
the possibilities are in real life. And if there
are several ways it can play out, you have a duty
to explain what they all are, not just one that
you like.
And the second point is this: one of the things that
I noticed was mentioning the money damages figures over
and over, and this is another example of it. I wrote
that I'd show that, and this is one place where I did.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
Perhaps you could suggest to Florian that he author something
like:
Google has applied for costs to be paid by Oracle and since the case
resulted in a damages amount of $0 to be paid to Oracle, Google may have
grounds to receive costs.
After all... such would be just as factually
correct as what Florian has previously authored.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I don't - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 07:15 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
Ultimately it did not appear that the Jury was swayed by that
draft email. Further the Judge never contradicted that view
once he had been given the full story.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|