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
Must be totally relevant | 361 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Really?!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 07:55 AM EDT
The court is not there for setting the rules. It is for making sure the existing rules are heeded.[emphasis mine]

It seems quite relevant to me to show what the position of Sun was at the time that Google was negotiating with them about using Java. As you point out the court should ensure that the existing rules are followed. It should not allow a plaintiff to rewrite history and pretend that it never held a contrary position.

This whole case smacks of opportunism and "sour grapes" on the part of Oracle... Google seems to be doing well in the market place, let's try to get a piece of the action.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is totally bizarre!
Authored by: artp on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT
I was going to put in a joke comment about PJ ruining such a
great CREATIVE effort by BSF AND Oracle by bringing up those
dirty, rotten, nasty FACTS, thus ruining the economy, and the
economy NEEDS creative efforts in order to survive, and
think of all the kids...

But I see that someone beat me to it, although without the
/humor tags that I was going to put in. :-(

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You want to abolish responsibility for past actions?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT
Your post is equivalent to "Estoppel should be abolished because companies
should always have the right to change their mind for business reasons".

That's pretty funny. Perhaps you haven't pondered whether rewriting history is
equitable for those affected by a company's earlier actions.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Must be totally relevant
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
Because it sure brought out the trolls!

Wonder which evil conspiracy feels threatened today?

[ 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 )