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
Combine with yesterday's question... | 319 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Yes I am encouraged by that too - n/t
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Odds against it being unanimous?
Authored by: amster69 on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT
The thing I find most confusing is that IIRC a civil case like this only
requires a jury of six. If so, then doesn't increasing that number to twelve
(now ten) greatly increase the odds of that jury failing to decide unanimously?

Bob

---
Bob

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Combine with yesterday's question...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 05:45 PM EDT
Yesterday, the jury asked if they were allowed to consider
Dr. Parr's testimony as fact (I guess as opposed to just his
opinion). While the judge danced a bit, the answer was
"yes."

Today, they wanted to hear that testimony read back. The
testimony that they're allowed to consider as fact.

Here's my read of the tea leaves:

The jury has resolved the '104 patent questions (which were
first on the form). They moved on to the '520 patent.
There's one juror who's holding out for Oracle on the '520
patent because that juror doesn't believe Dr. Carr, and
raised the question whether they were even allowed to
believe it. Hence yesterday's question. Now that they're
established they're allowed to believe it, they wanted it
read back again, hopefully to convince the holdout juror.
It didn't work, sort of - the holdout juror still has some
doubts, but doesn't think they can convince anyone else of
their position. Asking if it's OK to not be unanimous is
basically asking to surrender - "Look, I'm willing to accept
your view winning. Can we let you win without me voting for
it?"

Assuming the wild speculation above is accurate, I think
that bodes well for a verdict this time. If the holdout
will accept a contrary verdict, they'll eventually crack and
vote the party ticket....

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Parr had the last word
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
They will now go home and spend the whole weekend thinking about
what Parr said, and won't remember a thing Michelle said.

Eat your heart out, Oracle.

Gringo
Sent from my Android.

[ 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 )