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

Yes, but why be annoyed at both? | 262 comments | Create New Account

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

It's called corporal punishment n/t

Authored by: sd_ip_tech on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT

no text

---
sd_ip_tech

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yes, but why be annoyed at both?

Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT

He may be annoyed at Google because Van Nest is not there. If he believes that
Oracle is the liar he may feel ill equipped to counter that when Google's main
counsel is absent and the replacement is bound to give second rate advices.

He also have to give appearances of not being biased. He may feel compelled to
blame both while finding for Google.

This is complex second guessing of the judge's motivation. We don't really know
what is occurring. But I think the process is distorted because the judge is ill
equipped to handle a party that doesn't properly state what should be an
objective fact of technology. What we see is how the judge handle this
distortion.

[ 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 )