Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

key point i think u r missing | 361 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

key point i think u r missing

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:25 AM EDT

You've mentioned a couple of examples now (soccer game and
shop keeper) both having the same theme; just because
someone says a law is bad doesn't make others exempt from
it. Well you are correct on that.

However I think there is a subtle difference with this case.

If Sun said tax is bad, Google can't then not pay tax,
because tax law belongs to gov't not to Sun. However, Sun owned the copyright
and patents, so if it gives an
indication you are not violating either of those by
supporting what you do then that, to my mind, implicitly
states your consent for that company to continue free of
penalty.

Question here though is whether Sun did in fact tell Google
they were violating, which some of the emails seems to
perhaps suggest?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

key point i think u r missing - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- key point i think u r missing - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT
  - key point i think u r missing - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT

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 )