Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Oracle Seeks to Muzzle Jonathan Schwartz in Patent Phase & Judge Asks Two More API Qs ~pj | 314 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Oracle Seeks to Muzzle Jonathan Schwartz in Patent Phase & Judge Asks Two More API Qs ~pj

Authored by: jjs on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 06:53 AM EDT

But a CEO's statements CREATE binding contracts. He's the agent, he sets
policy. It's in the Job description.

And while Oracle can change policy going forward, if Sun set a policy in the
past, and Google relied on that policy, the best Oracle can do is say
"going forward here are the rules." Instead, Oracle wants to
retroactively change the rules.

Think about this from a contract standpoint. What Oracle wants to do is not
just cancel the contract, but retroactively eliminate it ever existing, and hold
Google liable for acting as if they had a contract that Oracle has now magically
made not exist, despite it existing.

Imagine trying to run a business where the other party in your binding contracts
can decide to totally eliminate them. Strikes me it removes two key words
businesses depend on - "binding" and "contract"

---
(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 )