|
| Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Oracle's public statement speaks volumes of the arrogance and sleaze of the
company's leadership. How can they claim that Google was intentionally reducing
interoperability when what they were suing over really amounted to Google trying
to maintain compatibility...not to mention the fact that Sun's leadership had
praised Google publicly for the activities.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
In unit tests conducted in a California federal courtroom, the evidence failed
when tested for overwhelmingness.
A small portion of the evidence barely reached the whelming level, when
bolstered by an admission from Google that the whelmable position was an actual
ocurrance.
Another related portion of the evidence resulted in the judge overruling the
jury's opinion that it had not been whelmed. This evidence also relied heavily
upon Google's admissions.
On the whole, the evidence has just failed the test for the qualities Oracle's
counsel has again claimed for it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 06:59 AM EDT |
"Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would
fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core
write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine
million Java developers and the community that depend on Java
compatibility." - it seems to me to be a completely irrelevant statement
that does not address the key issue of infringement. How is Google's alleged
knowledge that Android would fragment and damage Java relevant if no patents
were infringed?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
