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
Strange Strategy | 237 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Jury probably had trouble paying attention to Leo Cizek's testimony
Authored by: jheisey on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 10:17 PM EDT
I would agree with the judge about the value of Leo Cizek's testimony. If I was
on the jury, I know I would have had difficulty staying awake. I would not be
surprised if some of the jury also found themselves drowsy or having difficulty
concentrating during his time on the stand.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Strange Strategy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 09:30 AM EDT

Judge Alsup will be making the decision with regards whether or not the code in question is copyright protectable or not.

It's a strange strategy Oracle has in presenting their evidence in such a manner that Judge Alsup doesn't understand the connection.

While it's true that Oracle needs to present the case for the Jury to decide on willfullness and damages, they kinda sorta need to prove their base case that copyright infringement occurred in the first place.

That's what makes sense to me anyway. Oracle might want to review what occurred on Friday and clarify things for Judge Alsup.

Of course... all that assumes Oracle has a case to begin with. If they're trying to build a case where they know they don't have one... that would certainly explain why common BSF tactics have been allowed.

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 )