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
Schwartz Blog Was Corporate -- So Says Sun's 2008 10K ~ pj - Updated | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Schwartz Blog Was Corporate -- So Says Sun's 2008 10K ~ pj - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT
"What matters is, it was hosted on the Sun website and wrote
by the then CEO and was public accessable."

Why? You are begging the question.

"If what was stated in that blog was counter to Sun policies
or stated something false, then Sun, or more specifically,
the Board of Directors, would have had the misinformation
removed and replaced with the corporation's true statement
on the subject."

Again, why? You are begging the question. If anything and
everything on the blog was material to Corporate Governance,
then yes. But if not, then no. You are creating your own
logic by presuming the conclusion. Scroll through the
Wayback Machine: Schwartz liked to blather on and on.
There's talk of breakfasts and family photos and completely
useless, unhelpful, un-Corporate Governance "stuff" there.

"By doing nothing, the statements in that blog are then
taken as being the truth and Sun's position on the matter."

Again, why? Because you want it to be so?

And, again, I still see nothing in that post that says that
the APIs are not copyrighted or that Google is granted a
license. I do think Schwartz was a complete moron that
destroyed Sun, but no, I don't see any demonstration that
everything communicated in Schwartz's blog was entirely
Corporate communication -- simple browsing of it clearly
proves otherwise.

And, again, if Google's entire basis (hyperbole but not by
much) for thinking that they didn't need a license is based
off of that blog, why did they continue to negotiate for a
license and never discuss the blog post when questioning
whether or not they needed a license?

[ 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 )