|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 11:41 AM EDT |
I cannot imagine Jacobs arguing that evidence entered into the case could not be
considered by the jury.
It made me think of rsteinmetz70112's observations about the Oracle lawyers
presentation which prompted me to add,
'On reflection, it is more an attempt to engender a sense of outrage rather than
doing what they should have been doing and proving their case.'
'It's as though they wanted to cover lack of proof of ownership and copying of
owned IP with the smoke of gunfire.'
Perhaps Jacobs fears that the evidence will clear the smoke and the effect of
the hand-waving. It must pain him to follow this line.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
.
Given the state of this case Google can render it moot and irrelevant by
obtaining a specific written license from Apache, including the API's.
Then Oracle would have to start over with different circumstances. It would
also cut off damages.
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|