|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:03 AM EDT |
When the inevitable appeal happens... Google can get the judge to ask oracle
why these docs were not in the discovery material provided to Google.
With a name like oracle, I'm a little surprised they didn't see all this coming.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
Didn't Oracle claim earlier in the trial that neither Oracle nor Sun had
ever previously taken any contrary positions?
I don't remember the exact details of what that statement was
referring to, anyone else?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
Google should appeal the fair use part of the judgement as
this would have convinced that their use was fair from Sun's
point of view....
YellowShed[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:31 AM EDT |
Didn't IBM get chastised in a case where they couldn't find something, then they
did find it on a tape backup somewhere. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
The fact that Oracle removed this paper from the ex-Sun website proves they were
aware of it. Thus the fact that they withheld this materially relevant evidence
during discovery would appear to be deliberate rather than accidental. This in
turn certainly sounds like ammo for Google.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
