|
Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
As far as I know the Oracle lawyers didn't object. But Lindholm may be recalled. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
One interesting idea I just had was that Google knew that Oracle would object to
that, but that even going through the motions of having them object would put in
front of the jury that these people are not lawyers and they were making
business decisions, not legal ones.
After all, Google had their lawyers check out all the legal stuff, not their
engineers. So hopefully they can point back even to Oracle's own objections
when they fight over things like willfulness. At least, that's how I'd use
their objection. I mean, it's still part of the record, right?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
So an engineer's belief in whether or not he thought a license was
necessary is inadmissible? Because it might disclose a presumption
of innocence on his behalf and therefore kill the plaintiff's chances
of proving willful infringement with greater penalty? Something there
doesn't fit my notion of natural justice, that's why IANAL...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
If Oracle objects, stating that a lawyer has to determine license issues,
they've shot another foot, haven't they?
Maybe Google held their tongue, waiting for Oracle to object their own testimony
away?
---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|