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
Timescales match | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Timescales match
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT
Your statement only makes sense if that blog post was removed before the SEC was
told that the blog was official.

People reading blogs don't go "oh, that's an old posting, that's obviously
just random personal junk".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So the end of year filing is actually talking about the future?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT
Instead of the year it covers?

That would sound like a pretty dodgy argument, even if we were to accept that a

CEO publishing himself on his own company's domain name and talking about
company policies is somehow unofficial.

It certainly wouldn't speak highly of a company to basically say "Ignore
what our
CEOs say, they can't be trusted"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

    Timescales match
    Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 05:12 PM EDT
    Nope. See my corrections to your comments above.
    The SEC filing doesn't make it a corporate blog;
    it just proves it.

    The 10K which called it a corporate blog was
    filed for the year June 2007 to June 2008, and
    the Android blog entry was in November of 2007.
    So you are wrong. Stop posting incorrect info,
    please. This is Groklaw.

    [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

    Documentation of position?
    Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 08:15 PM EDT
    Care to provide pointers to SEC or other documents that
    state that anything the CEO of a company says on a public
    document published by the company is not to be considered if
    there is no forward looking statement?

    You're making some bold pronouncements - but providing not
    evidence that what you say is right.

    From my one class in business law (take it with a large
    grain of salt), the CEO is an agent of the company. What he
    says can bind the company, even if he mis-speaks. Certainly
    if the CEO of a company says "X is policy" AND THE BOARD
    DOES NOT REPUDIATE IT, the average investor is going to
    assume "X is policy." Why? Because his job is to set
    policy.

    And his statements are backed up by a) the board not
    repudiating it, b) SEC filings, c) Sun pronouncements at
    conferences and other events.

    ---
    (Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
    etc)

    [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

    Timescales match
    Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT
    The fact that the blog post may not have been covered does
    NOT mean it was not an official word - it just makes Sun more
    liable for the statements.

    ---
    (Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
    etc)

    [ 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 )