|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
It could be the opposite too. It could be
the one guy for Oracle, and at the end of
the trial, they all say, OK, Google didn't
infringe, and he's saying, I'll find a way
to prove to these morons that it did.
There's no predicting a jury. They surprise
you endlessly.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
I think that if it was just based on the facts presented in the case they would
probably side with Google on the patents. So I would guess there is maybe 1 or
more Oracle holdouts. An interesting point is that all members of the Jury come
into this bringing all there past experiences and views. This is why one
persons view of the facts will be different than others. Now I would guess that
none of the Jury really know anything good or bad about Oracle as its not really
a company people deal with in there day to day lives but they all know lots
about Google. Some of the Jury may think of Google as this wonderful search
engine they have used and be slightly pro Google. But there could be some who
have views about Google and the privacy threat they pose etc. Some think that a
company as big and powerful as Google must have ulterior motives and should be
viewed with suspicion and maybe stopped from getting too powerful. Oracle on
the other hand is openly evil so you can't really fault them like you can Google
(that's right they are lying cheating scum bags but at least they are honest and
upfront about this ;). Also these Jurors probably don't know anything about
Oracle's practices and culture anyway.
Michael[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
