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

can bsf come up with a new set of tricks in a new trial? | 197 comments | Create New Account

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

can bsf come up with a new set of tricks in a new trial?

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT

Because I think Google are now aware of the
arguments...

I get the feeling that keeping the defendent in the dark is
key to their success.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Given it is BSF, yes - n/t - Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT

I am wondering if Oracles 1126 (defer phase 3), is in fact a tactical response to G's1105 & 984)

Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 09:18 PM EDT

A redo that would allow Oracle to solve the problem getting evidence that it actually owns the items being infringed into the trial, evidence that there are damages to the smaller parts being infringed, and of course with that the ability to win BILLIONs of dollars!

You appear to be presupposing that there is a reason to reopen discovery. There seems no particular reason to give Oracle further bites of the apple when they (their expert witnesses) declined to do so when directed by the court. The defect in Oracle's case is appears inherent or of their own making.

[ 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 )