|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
Actually since the burden of proof is on Oracle, if no evidence was presented
that the SSO is copyrightable, this may mean the Judge can 'punt' the
question since Oracle failed to present evidence that it was.
-Ish[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 02:35 AM EDT |
The problem is that due to the time limitations offered during the case Google
never had time to get all the evidence into the trial record. They had to make
hard priorities about what to include to respond to what Oracle presented.
Oracle of course never suffered from this since their case build on everything
besides actual evidence.
Actually I think Oracles repeated change of infringement theory is very much
aimed at preventing Google the chance to bring in a coherrent record of evidence
and expert testomony. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|