decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Wrong answer | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle Didn't Do Homework?
Authored by: charlie Turner on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT
What do they think that will buy them, exactly?
3 blank faced stares from the appellate panel would be my guess. And, probably one from Judge Alsup, too.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It gets even better
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 09:20 PM EDT

The document referenced by Oracle is mentioned in the Google brief as well. A footnote mentions that it has been submitted by Google as an attachment to an exhibit (Docket 369-3). It can be found here:

http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf3/OraGoogle-369ExGG.pdf [PDF].

So Oracle tries to win a brownie from the court for trying ("we really wanted to, Your Honor, but it was so awfully hard"), but in fact they only rely on something that Google has brought to the attention of the court. Bad luck that Google mentioned the document in its own brief as well...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle Didn't Do Homework?
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 07:07 AM EDT
Right up there with being surprised by Christmas.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Wrong answer
Authored by: artp on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT
They really didn't want to talk about the stuff in that
brief. Really. There was no way to do that without imploding
their case even worse than it already was. Really, what else
could they say?

So they stand with hat in hand, telling the judge how
terribly hard it would be to find that awful brief that they
stuck in the second drawer down in their desk, behind the
jar of peanuts and the blackberry brandy (for medicinal
purposes only, of course).

It is such terrible bad news that an attorney shouldn't have
to face that first thing in the morning without having
SOMETHING that goes in their favor.

It just isn't FAIR!

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Do you guys know how cruel you are sounding?
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT
At least you did not bring the dog into the discussion.

Got to go and stifle hysteria, now.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )