|
|
|
| Authored by: darrellb on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
Oracle seems to claim that someone or someones in Sun didn't make an affirmative
decision not to sue. Huh? So what? Sun didn't sue and that fact is
uncontestable.
The only parties capable of making a decision to sue, or not to sue, are the CEO
and/or the Board of Directors. Even if the entire legal department and every
executive except Schwartz was beating the drums for Sun to sue Google, the fact
is that Sun didn't sue.
I wonder if Oracle is going out on a huge limb. Since Sun didn't sue, if Oracle
were to produce evidence showing that voices in Sun recommended litigation and
that there were reasons to sue, doesn't that strengthen Google's position?
Can't Google say, "Sun, even in the light of their best analysis, did not
sue becuase ultimately the grounds were too weak."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
The evidence makes it very clear that Sun continued to pursue
getting Google to license Java after the 2007 blog post and
were considering legal options. Likewise, before and after the
2007 blog post, Google still was considering their need to
license and/or face legal threats. This went on, on both
sides, for another three years.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
I just thought of a disturbing possibility.
a)
"setting the
records straight"
+
b)
is simply untrue, to the
extent that it is offered to suggest that Sun, the company, had made an
affirmative decision not to sue Google over Android
+
c)
Oracle can prove Mr. Schwartz’s testimony false, and is
prepared to do so, by offering testimony from other Sun executives, including
executives who were not previously disclosed as witnesses. If necessary, Oracle
may have little choice but to make a partial waiver of privilege.
Could a, b, c, mean Oracle actually have some privileged legal
evidence that they inherited from Sun indicating that Sun wanted to sue Google?
If yes, why didn't they present these earlier? Why now? Have they dug something
up recently?
Assuming that they are going to get a "waiver of privilege" and
present some new evidence that Sun wanted to sue Google, or rather, was in the
process of preparing to sue Google when Oracle acquired it, how might Google
prepare for this possibility?
I know this may all be speculation but in this
case, "forewarned is forearmed".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
I wouldn't get your hopes up too high.
Schwarz was a terrible witness, he gave no specifics to his evidence, he
didn't refer to any specific meeting.
Oracle could be bluffing, but they a using extremely forceful language here.
They are implying that they have evidence to crucify Schwartz.
You seem to be implying that every single person at sun is lying and only
Schwartz is telling the truth - I'm not sure how you can be so sure.
Oracle is also implying they have privileged documents that prove
Schwartz is lying and they have witnesses to prove he is lying.
Let's see what they have. If they have anything at all, it is devastating for
google.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
Let Oracle brong them in, on condition that Google can impeach each
witness, and lawyer for Oracle for perjury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
