|
| Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
| ...but its the hand they got. And if they don't bet, they won't
win.
:-)
---
Real Programmers mangle their own memory. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
The witness was Scott McNealy.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 03:32 AM EDT |
If Oracle can't disprove it without waiving privilege, I guess they'll have to
waive privilege. So what. Privilege is an option not a compulsion. Novell had a
lawyer testify on their behalf on the process of drawing up the agreement with
SCO and that evidence was very pivotal in the outcome of that case. So if Oracle
feels that it needs to call a lawyer to the stand, there is nothing stopping
them. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 07:32 AM EDT |
If I were Oracle, I'd be worried that such a jury might seek to
change its copyright verdict or, if not allowed, just try to avoid finding for
Oracle on patent claims, even if otherwise they might have. Jurors are people,
and people don't like being fooled, inadvertently or otherwise. Especially
otherwise.
Oracle could always settle what appears to be a largely
baseless suit.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: darrellb on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 07:59 AM EDT |
Exactly. He was the CEO and spoke for the company at the time. As an executive,
he made decisions based on information and opinions of others, including the
legal department. Such decisions routinely include litigation strategies and
tactics.
Oracle is clearly worried about what he will testify. I certainly expect to hear
more about the blog.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT |
And his use of "we" may have nothing to do with lawyers, but with the
royal "we" as in "we, Sun, of which I'm CEO and empowered to make
decisions for (it's my job description), therefore when I speak, I speak for Sun
(the we)."
Oracle should have asked in cross-examination who he meant by "we" -
too late now.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- That is weird - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:38 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 10:15 PM EDT |
I don't remember an objection from Oracle's counsel at the time
Schwartz gave this testimony. If no objection was raised then (and I'd
expect at least a mention of such timely objection in support of the
present motion), hasn't Oracle forfeited the opportunity?
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 05:08 AM EDT |
Unfortunately he should never have said essentially sun got legal advice
that they had no grounds to sue. It almost certainly gives oracle grounds for
appeal or a mistrial.
I think what oracle is saying is that Schwartz never received such advice
and to prove it they have to show their legal advice and also bring in the
people that were with Schwartz to prove he lied.
This is a massive problem for google.
Add this to the fact not a single board member, not a single co founder,
absolutely every single person at sun refutes his evidence, and the fact that
he has voluntarily given evidence on behalf of google without needing to be
subpoenaed.
Google could have done without this.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT |
Fourth, Mr. Schwartz’s testimony in Phase 1 concerned copyrights,
not patents. Even if that testimony were proper and admissible – and for the
reasons stated above, it is not – there is no basis in that trial testimony to
conclude that Mr. Schwartz ever evaluated Sun’s patent claims or was capable of
doing so, that he had made any effort to do so, or that he ever made any
decision whether or not to sue on those particular
claims.
Since Oracle admits that Mr. Schwartz's testimony in
phase 1 was only about copyrights, not patents, clearly Google should be allowed
to bring him back in phase 2 to testify about patents!
Oracle might have
been better off if they had claimed that his existing testimony was already
sufficient. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
