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
Wasn't that priceless? | 238 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Wasn't that priceless?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 12:54 AM EDT
...he is trying to mislead the judge...
Or in this case, Jury.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Wasn't that headless?
Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 04:44 AM EDT
> Boies: That's not what we're trying to say.
> And I'm probably not explaining well.

At this late stage in their presentation of the case,
it's strange that he is unable to explain things well,
and this should be a cause for suspicion by the judge.
They are gripping for a straw which they cannot even
describe properly - probably because it isn't there.

To me, this looks a lot like litigation over nothing
but hot air, with a plan to remain vague and confusing
in a vain hope of getting a jury to believe that there
must be some violation simply because Oracle brought a
lawsuit. I get an image in my mind of Oracle as
a headless chicken trying to escape after being
beheaded. They're going through the motions without
any hope of survival, and without a plan, but if they
don't follow through with this dead case, they might
run the risk of being accused of frivolous litigation.

[ 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 )