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

Patently clear? | 262 comments | Create New Account

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

Judge encouraging counsel to explain to jury for 5 min ea. Oracle: yes, Google: No

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT

Yeah, it helps when the Oracle lawyers will just say whatever makes Google
appear to infringe upon their patent. Google has to try and actually be
correct. Giving Oracle more time to muddy the waters is not recommended.

I wish there was a neutral court expert that the lawyers for each side could
examine. That would make more sense than allowing the lawyers themselves to
prevaricate on technical stuff they may or may not have a firm grasp of. Though
it's hard to tell with Oracle's lawyers. They might understand it, but they're
being paid not to, though it's also possible that the ignorance is real.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Patently clear?

Authored by: betajet on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 04:38 PM EDT

A rhetorical question: if a patent is unclear about what is being patented,
shouldn't that make it automatically invalid?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yes, unclear => invalid - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:11 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 )