|
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:20 AM EDT |
The only thing I could find was in Google's arguments about the Lindholm email.
The judge repeated the argument in his decision:
A motion in limine
is an appropriate means to prevent a party from withholding information in
discovery, only to take a contrary position at trial.
Well
remembered, though.--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 04:12 AM EDT |
It was maybe one of the situations when the judge was
asking for briefings on the copyrightability of APIs, and
asked if parties had ever taken a contrary view.
Not sure if it related to patents too, but think not.
I'm on a mobile device now so it's difficult to research.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|