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

Don't see thow this would work | 342 comments | Create New Account

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

Don't see thow this would work

Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 04:17 AM EDT

If one side presented a clear factual trail and the other was muddled in its
presentation, I know which side I would be voting for in the jury room, unless
something overwhelming came out of the muddle.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

To err is human - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT

Judge: Encourages Oracle to get their act together on their exhibit numbering. Oh Dear.

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 04:56 AM EDT

Given the judge will apparently rule on the copyright case
anyway, Oracle's arguments will be exposed as ridiculous
before they get onto the patent issues.

The fog of confusion may be necessary to imply that they are
acting out of incompetence rather than dishonest motives.

Frankly I don't think that the Jury will understand any of
this anyway, so it may just be a case of who manages to
repeat "free, open" or "infringe, stolen" the most, to set
the tone for them.

[ 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 )