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

Still missing 'to' before 'sue' ... | 314 comments | Create New Account

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

Still missing 'to' before 'sue' ...

Authored by: nsomos on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:10 AM EDT

They are still missing a 'to' before 'sue',
and they still cannot change history. And I still
wonder if anyone at BSF proofreads their garbage.

This suit was not brought before the purchase.
The key word in "had decided not (to) sue" is 'had'.

Oracle knew or should have known what public representations
Sun had made before. If Oracle did not like those,
then Oracle should not have bought the company.

Tough.
(I'd say 'tough luck' but luck has nothing to do with this)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Still missing 'to' before 'sue' ... - Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 02:15 AM EDT

They do.

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 04:56 AM EDT

It was Sun and Sun's management that decided not to sue. Much later, Oracle and it's management bought the company and later again Oracle's management (different people than Sun's management) decided to sue Google.

So how is it correct or legal to say "Further, the suggestion that Oracle had decided not sue is clearly against the weight of the evidence presented in this case" when Oracle decided nothing as it was Sun's management that made decisions not to sue. Now Oracle wants the biggest of Sun's management bods excluded from further testimony because, as Fletcher said in liar liar "it's devastating to my case!"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

They do. - Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT
- Judge not fooled. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 07:15 PM EDT
  - Judge not fooled. - Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 08:46 PM EDT

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 )