I think you've identified your personal handicap. My sympathies. But look at it
this way:
"Further, the suggestion that Oracle had decided not sue
is
clearly against the weight of the evidence presented in this
case."
Oracle maintains a smooth transition from Sun to Oracle
America. And it was. Suppose it was the same transition but without the name
change. That might not be possible, but suppose it were as simple as the Sun
BOD, deciding Schwartz was a clown, dismissed him and replaced with some
unknown, call him Larry. Larry Mallicin.
Now suppose Mr. Mallicin didn't
like Mr. Schwartz' old policy and direction. Understandable, otherwise the BOD
wouldn't have tapped him. And in particular Mr. Mallicin decides its time to be
serious about seriously monetizing Java, and proceeds to file this present
lawsuit against Google, only difference being the title is now Sun v
Google.
Such is how Oracle would like the judge and jury to see it. Is
there a problem so far? Because if not, then the qustion comes down to whether
or not Sun under Schwartz made a legally binding decision not to sue Google,
and/or made a legally binding representation to Google that they would not sue.
(Laches, estoppel, blah blah blah.)
Mr. Mallicin:
"At the time
our internal agreement was not to sue, pending possible further
negotiations with Google. But we never made any representation to Google or
anyone else that we would never sue because, obliviously, we
have."
Now its for the jury to determine the fact of the
case.
--- Real Programmers mangle their own memory. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|