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
As a matter of law... | 361 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Might be allowed to use this to impeach witness
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
I recall a few instances in this trial where parties were allowed to introduce
"new" evidence through impeaching the opposition witnesses. If this
goes to show that an expert witness is lying on the stand about past events; it
might be let in.

Of course IANAL and all ;), just observations from the current case.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

As a matter of law...
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:52 PM EDT
What's the situation where the Judge told the parties to "advise him of any
contrary view they may have taken in the past"?

Surely even at this late stage Google can file a motion "bringing to the
Judge's attention this 2006 paper"?

That is, of course, assuming that the Judge isn't personally or by proxy
following Groklaw. But such a motion would at least bring the paper into the
trial record. And I can't see the Judge objecting to Google entering something
that he *ex*plicitly told Oracle to enter ...

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds