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
So, Google's Agent was good, when will we see that SUN is guilty of "Acquiescence"? | 126 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
So, Google's Agent was good, when will we see that SUN is guilty of "Acquiescence"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT
Tons of money are at stake?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So, Google's Agent was good, when will we see that SUN is guilty of "Acquiescence"?
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
As one of my friends is wont to say in situations like this one:

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story..."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Conflicting principal involved: One Trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT

I think a follow up to your question is:

    Would the Laws Of Agency allow a Summary Judgement to occur?
In other words:
    Is it a question of Law that can be decided on Summary Judgement?
vs
    Is it a question of Fact that must be decided by the fact finder?
I think if Oracle was honest about the fact that they were held to Sun's behavior and agreed Sun allowed the situation then:
    Google would have applied for Summary Judgement and case closed!
But... Oracle has a difference of opinion with regards such facts... so they become issues for the fact finder to handle.

Now... let's say they only held the trial on that fact alone. And the factfinder decided there was insufficient evidence to find that Sun did authorize such behavior. Then that particular defense is closed for Google.

A new trial would be required for the next defense. And a new trial for the defense after that. And a new trial for the one after that.

So in comes the principal of:

    One Trial to determine all facts!
And so all evidence is presented with all defenses:
    Laws Of Agency
    Not protected by Copyright Law
    Did not require a license
and so on. Just because you believe that the simple application of Laws Of Agency should just apply and therefore close the case - that ignores the fact that Oracle has a difference of opinion on the facts surrounding that aspect.

Refusing to listen to the arguments of one side of the equation - no matter how bad their arguments are - is not very fair.

If one could simply harvest all the news media of the time frame, examine it and take it at its word, then make a decision:

    Considering how SCOG flooded the media with all the infringement of Linux with regards Unix
Would that really be the process you want in place? Linux is already guilty without even an examination into what's really going on?

I sure hope not!

RAS

[ 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 )