|
Authored by: s65_sean on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
No, the jury is going with what it now has, at least for the copyright phase of
the trial. If the issue of Schwartz's blog comes up again in the patent phase of
the trial, Google may be able to bring it in at that point, and I think that
they would be able to use it in a re-trial if an appeal resulted in it being
remanded back for re-trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
It gives Google an angle for appeal I would think due to the perjury. Hmmmm
sanctions.... Disbarment for blatantly, knowingly lying.... Repeatedly!!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
It's relevant to what really happened, even it if isn't presented as evidence
for the trial. The jury could possibly come to an incorrect conclusion because
they didn't know about this fact, but it's still relevant to the historical
record. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|