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
You have an advantage | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Recruiting honest shills
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT
It's actually simpler than that: Atticus Finch was *lying*.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

advance access to one's own briefs
Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
And when that brief later gets entered into the court record as a redacted document? Perhaps due to mentioning things that were redacted in other documents they wanted people to know about but could not mention in court? Hmmm, Oracle tried just about every other dirty trick to sway the masses, so I'm rather surprised that they missed that one.

But that is all about stock prices, not the final case outcome. Their problem is that its not the media shills or their readers that deliberate the case. Its the jury, and the jury is not listening to shills, by the order of a Court mandate. Besides, the jury already has those same documents in unredacted form from the official record, why would they want or need to listen to any unnecessary spin and drivel from Oracle? Hmmm. Almost makes me almost wish I were on that jury!

---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You have an advantage
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT

Being "trained in the art" - at least, I assume you are when you notice all the holes in Oracle's argument - you are able to see the differences in what makes truly logical sense and what's just spun yarn.

Now... a Jury devoid of any "trained in the art"... it's not as easy for them to tell which side is spinning the yarn. That doesn't mean they can't tell. Just that it's not so easy.

Most of us here wouldn't have been in deliberations for such a lenghty time I'd be willing to wager. Either on the Copyright or Patent infringement questions. But then, I'd also have to honestly say:

    I'm not sure I can take what I've learned elsewhere, completely forget it, and in an unbiased fashion examine the evidence, arguments and Legal theory presented.
Just the concept of applying a copyright to an API raises huge alarms. If I'm coding on an Oracle database and I utilize their to_number function... did I just infringe their copyrights in their eyes? Does that also mean that they will lay claim to the work I created wherein I used their functions by claiming it's a derivative work?

The Legal argument surrounding API's in this case make one exceedingly leary about Oracle. It's like having a rattlesnake threaten to bite you - after it rapidly tried to bite someone else several times. After that point, you're going to:

    A: Keep a very close eye on it!
and
    B: Keep your distance - the more the better!

RAS

[ 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 )