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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
"permitted to be taken as evidence" | 89 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"permitted to be taken as evidence"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 08:11 PM EDT
Very simple.
Has Oracle proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
Google directly infringes? Of course not...
Oracle has not proven it has the greater weight of the
evidence than Google.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"permitted to be taken as evidence"
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT
I think a group of 12 honest people would be able to tell which expert is most
straightforward and honest.

Here we have two experts one says it doesn't infringe one says it does.

The only real question is which one do they believe more.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

wait, what?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 09:01 PM EDT
Google's expert, Dr. August, told the truth. Oracle's expert, Dr. Mitchell,
told lies. He said a numeric index could be a symbolic reference. He said the
numeric index in the iget bytecode was a "name".

Dr. Mitchell's statements under oath were a textbook example of "materially
false and misleading".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"permitted to be taken as evidence"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT
You are all responding based on your knowledge of the subject matter. You are
correct in that someone who does understand the material can pick who is telling
the truth and who is twisting it.

My point is that the average juror does not have that background. Imagine you
are a juror listening to highly technical testimony on a subject in which you
had little understanding. You could hear from two experts, but convincing in
their presentation but one telling the absolute truth and one telling bare-faced
lies. If each testimony was presented in an equally professional manner and even
the bare-faced lies were made to sound plausible, how could you tell who was
telling the truth? What is worse would be if the one who is telling the truth is
a little nervous such that the cross-examining lawyer can make him sound shifty
or uncertain, then the liar will be the one whose testimony shines.

Of course, no one who enjoys his freedom would tell bare-faced lies on the
stand. This only adds to the problem in that his testimony will contain enough
truth to stay out of jail with enough twist to support his employer's case.

[ 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 )