|
|
|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
Oracle pointed out that Schwartz had access to the real information, i.e., he
would have been part of the actual conversations with the corporate lawyers.
Therefore he cannot testify because those were privileged conversations.
Lindholm, on the other hand, was not an executive, not a lawyer, not even on the
Android team at the time. Therefore there is no reason to withhold his testimony
like they want to withhold Schwartz's testimony on the basis that it would be
damaging to Oracle. Um, strike that, I mean on the basis that Schwartz has real
knowledge of what happened. Or whatever the logic of that is.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Priviledged? - Authored by: argee on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 11:52 PM EDT
- Priviledged? - Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 12:13 AM EDT
- 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
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
| Since Lindholm is an engineer, his internal communications are not only valid
legal opinions, they are also binding contracts that Google must now honor. If
nothing else, this will teach Google a valuable lesson about being more careful
with documents they disclose during discovery.
On the other hand, Schwartz
was just a lowly CEO. We can provide this court with ample (sealed) evidence
that CEOs of Sun/Oracle are more than willing to lie and mislead, not only in
public but also under oath. Why on earth should this court allow the record to
be further polluted by accepting anything more this Schwartz fellow has to say?
As for his private so-called ""blog"",
we maintain Google has made their
own version of a way-back machine (most likely out of precious IP they stole
from us) that actually lets them go back in time and alter history. We know
this claim is extraordinary but we have incontrovertible proof. Have you or has
anyone else ever seen a single shred of evidence of Google's time machine? No!
Of course not because they used the time machine to hide all evidence of its
existence. This also explains why the upstart Google is so profitable while
prestigious companies like Oracle are stumbling. In fact, Google's ability to
alter history explains why their story is based on so much hard evidence. How
can your trust any of those ""facts""? They happened in the past! Google could
have planted each and every one of them just to fool the good, hard-working,
honest people of the jury.
The only path towards true justice is for you
to forbid any Google witness from testifying and for you to throw out all of
Google's so-called ""evidence"".
---
Our job is to remind ourselves
that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darrellb on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 08:08 AM EDT |
Yes, to the extent that Lindholm expressed a legal opinion. No with his respect
to his opinion that they "all suck."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
Google should request that Oracle's entire legal team be excluded, since they
continually use the word "we", which implies that they have discussed
things among themselves and with Oracle, thereby making the entire case
Attorney-Client priviledge![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- ROTFL - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
