decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Priviledged? | 314 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Priviledged?
Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 12:13 AM EDT
I'm not a lawyer, but think you are mistaken. Privileged information cuts both ways, methinks. Neither a lawyer nor his client may be compelled to divulge it. In the clients case, "privileged" means -- short answer -- information discussed with an attorney. The information itself isn't necessarily privileged, but the discussion is.

Its the "compelled" bit that comes up here. Privileged discussions are not something Mr. Schwartz could be compelled to discuss were he still a Snoracle employee. But as he isn't, Oracle would like to be able to limit what he might otherwise voluntarily disclose when he was.

As PJ has observed, its a critically important motion for Oracle to win. They've played their McNealy card. It was pure bluff, but Google didn't have their ducks lined up to call it.

Stay 'tooned!

---
Real Programmers mangle their own memory.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Priviledged? - Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 12:28 AM EDT
    • Priviledged? - Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 12:30 AM EDT
      • Oh - Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 12:32 AM EDT
    • Priviledged? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT
  • Priviledged? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 03:59 AM EDT
Priviledged?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 03:50 AM EDT
The situation that Oracle seems to be arguing about is that these conversations were privileged at one time, and regardless if, at that time, he had an ability to break that privilege, he certainly does not now as he is no longer an employee of that company and the privilege is attached to the corporation, not the individual.

I'm not sure if that's atty-client confidentiality, or violation of an NDA, or something else. But it does seem rather have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too to claim that a former employee either a) knows too much to talk (Schwartz) or b) knows too little to be credible (various witnesses).

[ 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 )