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
Legal opinions from engineers? | 238 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Legal opinions from engineers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 02:38 AM EDT
Would somebody please explain to me how that objection was
sustained. ISTM that Lee could be "not a lawyer" or
not a physician or not a bus driver, what he stated in
his answer was his own personal experience. People
have been doing that, contributing to Java and making it
free for everything [sic] to use, for years, but Oracle desperately
wants the jury not to know.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Legal opinions from engineers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 08:57 AM EDT
IANAL, but Andy Rubin is not just an engineer but a Senior VP. In a similar objection a Google lawyer pointed out that Dan Morill (witness) was neither an executive nor a director when being questioned. So I guess executives are supposed to know some law.
Oracle: Android ships with implementations of all of these classes using these same names, the same as the Java API?

Dan Morrill: Yes.

Oracle: Not only does the Android API use the same names, it also uses the same form and organization as Java?

Dan Morrill: Yes.

Oracle: (Plays video deposition of Dan Morrill, page 57, lines 1-9, July 12, 2011)

Google: Objection. Mr. Morrill is not an executive or [director ?] at Google.

Oracle: 801 exception.

Judge Alsup: Let me be clear [to the jury , when we say "party admission" under rule 32, there is also an exemption to the hearsay rule. When something comes in as a party admission, it isn't written in stone. It's just a part of the evidence. There is no extra or conclusive value to it. No extra weight is to be given to it [compared to] something that has come into evidence [ via another route ].

Oracle: What you do in your job is to make sure that Android devices are compatible with Android.

Dan Morrill: That seems to be insufficient criteria for what I do.

(from Day 5 - Oracle v. Google Trial ~pj - Updated 4Xs).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Mmmmm - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 10:41 AM EDT
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 )