decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Timing. | 153 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
ORACLE will put Tim on the stand?
Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:33 AM EDT
I agree that it seems likely that Tim Lindholm
will testify to pretty much nothing at all of
any substance. He is not a lawyer, he is not
the person making the decisions, he gave his
personal opinion on a complicated matter over
which he was not qualified to make a balanced
judgment, and the email is from a date after
Oracle brought the lawsuit, not before it.

It's like if a key witness in a murder trial
testified to maybe having seen the accused on
the scene of the crime, or at least near it, but
he really didn't look closely enough to be
certain, and the date in question was not the
date of the murder, but a few years later.

It will be a bit bizarre to watch Lindholm's
employer discredit him as a witness during cross
examination, most probably with his full approval.
I fully expect his testimony to be nothing more
than a minor nuisance to Google.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Timing.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:13 AM EDT
There is only one question Google will need to ask on cross, that will do
wonders for discrediting his email without discrediting him personally:

"When did you write that email?"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

ORACLE will put Tim on the stand?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:55 AM EDT
It gives Oracle a chance to talk about the email. And if they talk about it a
lot, then it must be important, right? And if Google spends time denying that it
is important, then they must be hiding something, right?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

ORACLE will put Tim on the stand?
Authored by: ionic on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 07:01 AM EDT
It seems to me that Lindholm's email made it on to the record precisely becuase
he's an engineer not a legal person, hence using language that wasn't carefully
though out from a legal perspective and not "addressed" in a manner
that would have allowed it to be privelidged.

I can only assume that Oracle are hoping to take advantage of his legal naievity
on the stand and trick him into making a statement he shouldn't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The witness examination of my dreams...
Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT
Oracle: Please tell the Court Mr Lindholm, exactly why did you feel that Google should take a license from Oracle for Java?

Lindholm: Because it was in my expert opinion as a software engineer, that when someone tries to extort money out of you with Software Patents, its better to just pay it to make them disappear rather than rewriting everything from scratch. Of course I am not a Financial expert, so I would have to defer that actual decision to the Google business accountants as to whether that is even feasible in this case.

Google: No questions your honour.

---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )