|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
this is correct
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
IANAL, but it looks as though you have it right. Oracle got
caught in court trying to have its cake and eat it to. They
are now in a catch 22 situation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
Google relied upon Oracle's statements in order to introduce this, but I suspect
it was "submarine" attack. They likely discovered the registration
flaw well in advance, but didn't highlight it by asking questions in discovery
or in pre-trial statements.
I'm uncertain how this will be viewed.
Both parties are supposed to set forth the arguments they will be making prior
to the trial, but a defendant gets flexibility to adapt their defense. Most
trials at this level involve both claims and counter-claims, which results in
both parties having an equal responsibility to do disclose.
But in this trial Google hasn't filed counter-claims, which should give them
full rights to any new defense that emerges. Oracle is making novel claims --
trying for a ruling that goes beyond precedent and is contrary to industry
practice. They opened the door, in a way that Google has a semi-credible claim
wasn't predictable.
The judge might be a little miffed at this not being disclosed before the trial
began, or he may view Oracle's extraordinary claims (especially Billions and
Billions in damages) as requiring at least normal attention to procedural
detail.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
