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
Wong's Blog Works Against Oracle's Dalvik VM Assertions! | 225 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Wong and Poore
Authored by: jvillain on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT
I had the impression that they were going to be questioned whether it is normal
for companies/people to ignore other peoples patents when designing. That goes
to the wilful negligence that Oracle was hammering on yesterday.

To me there is no greater proof of the complete failure of software patents than
the fact that the people who publishing is supposed to help, go out of their way
to avoid that help because it is toxic.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

We don't know
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
As far as I know they are/were Oracle employees, involved in
analysing Android possibly in relation to this case. Oracle
have used some of their testimony, and now Google wants the
chance to interview them in court.

Evidently Google thinks it can get some useful testimony from
them, but I don't think they are friendly witnesses
particularly.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • We don't know - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT
    • We don't know - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT
Wong's Blog Works Against Oracle's Dalvik VM Assertions!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
If you go back in PJ's postings on this case, you'll find
comments that relate to Wong's Oracle blog stating Java VM
is entirely different than Google's Dalvik VM. He wouldn't
dare testify against the deposition Google was allowed to
take from him on this subject. Hostile witness maybe, but
publically posting on his Blog that Android Dalvik is
entirely different than Sun's Java VM could blow Oracle
Patent case to hell!!! ....and they can't just claim Wong
was in the wrong by posting his personal opinion on the web
for all to see!!!

Both Wong and Poore's testimony should be very fun to watch
for Google Fans as they should both be seen worming around
in their seats on questioning from Van Nest!!!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Bob Vandette on performance of Android Vs. Java ME
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 07:12 PM EDT
Interesting post by Bon Vandette

[ 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 )