Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

FUD - perhaps (about the 2006 date) | 153 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

FUD - perhaps (about the 2006 date)

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 01:38 PM EDT

It could be a case of:

The journalist doesn't have the inclincation to actually verify facts before presenting them combined with:

The deliberate attempt to obfuscate the date the Lindholm email was written on Oracle's part It wouldn't at all surprise me if the statement was structured in such a way as to present something else in the 2006 date time explicitly identifying the date, then present the Lindholm email and hoping the Jury will conclude it was in 2006 also.

In other words: it could be an indication of what Oracle would like the Jury to think and so they presented it in such a way that a conclusion was drawn that wasn't actually stated by Oracle.

I sure hope Google's presentation today makes the date on the Lindholm email clear - but there could very well be a lot more of higher importance and with the limited time for presenting the opening statement there just might not be sufficient time for that.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

FUD - perhaps (about the 2006 date) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- FUD - perhaps (about the 2006 date) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 01:19 AM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )