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
Surely BSF would have checked.... | 394 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Surely BSF would have checked....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT

Hmm... you must be relatively new.

BSF have no problem telling a Judge he said the sky was plaid when the Judge clearly said the sky was blue.

I know: that's crazy, why would any sane person do that?

All I can say is: it's a BSF thing. Whatever to say in any given moment to best support your position. Truth/false are concepts that simply don't play a role. Neither does anything you've said previously no matter how contradictory.

One has to stay on ones toes with BSF. If you're shocked that Google didn't catch the disconnect till 2 days later, how do you feel about the Judge having to be informed by Google?

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Shocked
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT
I think this is the reason that BSF is so popular. They take cases where there really is none, and they don't have any moral issues with not playing fair. They will take advantage of every little trick 'not in the book', and then some that are if they think they won't get caught. Footguns are apparently a very popular pastime at BSF.

I could never work for any company like BSF no matter how well they paid. Of course IANAL, so that would never happen anyway, so I'm quite safe from ever having that nightmare.

---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Prestigitation, Jedi mind tricks, lies...no truth!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT
BSF knows the truth, the law, the judge, the jury, the
opposing lawyers, the reporters, their customer, and
their legal/extra-legal strategy options.

BSF just does not want anyone else to know. Like master
magicians, they misdirect, misfire, miscue, and misspeak
with a straight face and outreached hand. BSK entertains
you as long as you play their game.

BSF work products are often sloppy, late, and
non-responsive unless the judge sanctions them.

BSF repeatedly interjects falsehoods in the banter by
repeating what has just been presented incorrectly.

Overflowing short term memory, planting false memories,
deliberately refusing to understand/comply, wearing down
the judge, jury, press, and public.

Creating useless makework for opposing lawyers by missing
deadlines and acting in contravention of agreements and
orders. Keep everyone off balance and edgy.

BSF is paid big money and puts on a big show. If you react
at all, they control your emotions and gum up your
intellect.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

'To this day'
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT
Before the SCO trial, they got the judge to keep the summary judgement and bench
trial by Judge Kimball from the jury.

In their opening brief they said that something had appeared on the Novell
website 'to this day' which was evidence of continued wilful slander of title to
the copyrights and that was evidence of the period over which the wilful slander
had, and continued to, happen. That affected the damages that were due.

This opened the issue of the judgement and trial to the trial, because the judge
had given Novell reason to believe that they had not slandered the title after
this opinion.

Google have suspected that Oracle were about to shoot off yet another foot when,
in the opening brief, they said that all of Java is fully registered with the
USPTO and is thereby protected by the Constitution. That includes the SSO in the
API.

Then on Monday, they either said that the APIs were not a compilation or that
they were. I'm not bothering to look. The judge seems to have come to the
conclusion that they claimed both things and that they wanted it 'both ways'.

That opened the issue for a Rule 50 Motion.

Clever old Judge Alsup says that he will decide the matter apart from the
current jury work. That way, when Oracle appeal his decision... I beg your
pardon, if either party appeal his decision, it will not affect the crushing
loss to Oracle... I'm sorry, the outcome of the jury deliberations.

These were two very different court cases. I can't help feeling that they have
something in common.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )