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

Interesting stipulation | 151 comments | Create New Account

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

Interesting stipulation

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:23 PM EDT

Curious: Does this mean that Google can't call this Mitchell out using his
own teaching material? Maybe Oracle wanted this to protect him from
perjury charges?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I don't think so - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- I don't think so - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
  - I don't think so - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT

Why would Google agree?

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT

Well... I can't speak for Google, but if'n I were Google I'd agree for:

1) The opinion that there is currently no evidence in play that would show a causal (not casual) connection between the infringement and the Android profits - combined with the view Judge Alsup seems to carry on those points.

2) This would prevent Oracle from trying to sneak in new evidence - such a limitation on Google when Google has no intent of pulling such a tactic is virtually non existent.

RAS

[ 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 )