|
|
|
| Authored by: jjs on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 06:32 AM EDT |
Given that Oracle (as well as Google) specifically ASKED that Judge Alsup be the
one to decide this, is him choosing to decide it actually prejudicial?
Admittedly, I would have preferred to see the decision before the trial, but
then again, Oracle ware the ones pushing for the early trial, Google was more
than willing to wait (even until all the USPTO actions were complete).
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mtew on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
Hmm. I think I see what you mean, but they really don't have any solid ground
to stand on in that regard...
From what I remember, the judge started with quite a bit of good will for Oracle
and has been obviously skeptical of Google on more than one occasion. Oracle
has squandered that good will on attempts to 'game' the system and Google has
been quite careful to allay his skepticism.
Given that history, what evidence can they present to show prejudice against
them?
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
I caught your snark the first time.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 08:50 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
