Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
Broken linky..
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
We'll stop flogging one of our many dead horses if you give us a new one?
Why would anyone do that? Let them flog their dead unicorns.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/
california/candce/3 :2010cv03561/231846/1106/ [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
BS&F delay, delay, delay, delay
It is nonsense that the Jury found a fucntion so tiny that it os dictated by its
needs and even the judge indicated he would probably implement it in the same
way was no in fact de minimis
If RangeCheck is not de-minimis, then what is?
Reading the verdict form carefully, it is poorly worded and dos not actualy ask
the Jury if it is de-minimis, it just states that de-minimis is a question, and
goes to ask 'infrginged? Y/N?'
An earlier draft, asked Infringed ? De-minimis?
Oracle know that Google cannot accept this.
But then when have BS&F ever wanted anything else?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
Is that really what they're asking? Google to give them a
bone, when they argued for zero dollars on rangecheck?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|