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
Classic BS&F Ploy | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A miss by Google.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 04:32 PM EDT
I got the impression Google didn't see McNeeley coming with that.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

CEO statements carry weight, and could be reasonably relied on.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT
Surely published statements by the CEO on company policy and direction carry
weight regardless of where they appear and how "official" they are
deemed.

The official status of the blog strengthens that, but I don't think it (should
be)
required for estoppel.

IANAL

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Makes me wonder
Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT
What else might be hiding in Schwartz' blog?

BS&F have had trouble before with lose-lose situations, could this be
another? Maybe Google is trying to set up a surprise down the line.

---
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 | # ]

Schwartz is back for the patent phase
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 02:11 AM EDT
@jniccolai
Google's list of next 10 witnesses include Jonathan Schwartz, he was so good for

them the first time they want more! #OraclevGoogle

I guess this will come up again...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Classic BS&F Ploy
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 06:54 AM EDT
We saw a lot of this in the SCO wars. The ridiculous API copyright claims are an example. They constantly pull stuff from out of their hat that nobody expects (because it is a bunch of lies), and since the court system is basically "you snooze, you lose", BS&F has been getting way with these stupid stunts to game the system for years. An even bigger example is the lie Ellison told about people using Java without the APIs.

The only reason we are having a trial over this nonsense is because for the past 20 years everyone in Silicon Valley has assumed APIs cannot be copyrighted so there is no recent legal precedents that apply to this case. Basically, they are trying to turn to their advantage the fact that their entire legal theory is a pile of fertilizer. They also count on bamboozling the judges and the juries by confusing them with changing definitions and technical complications.

The only way our legal system can work is if the officers of the court are fundamentally honest and decent. For example, they should not suborn perjury. BS&F tap dances around this, gaming the system. It is sociopathic behavior because they are destroy part of our society (the legal system) for their own personal gain.

I completely disagree with you. I don't think Google could have expected Oracle would have Sun's ex-CEO perjure himself on the witness stand. If Oracle didn't play all these stupid stunts and tricks, they would have no case. It is all smoke and mirrors and a massive disservice to society.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ 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 )