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

And did I mention that... | 294 comments | Create New Account

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

And did I mention that...

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 12:10 PM EDT

...it was me who first highlighted the decompiled files and
said that they were so important, and then the judge agreed
with me and said they were super important, and the jury
were wrong. The judge was ace when he said that, and it just
proves that I understand judges and law and that sort of
stuff.

When the judge says things like about these patent thingamajigs he obviously
doesn't know what he's talking
about though. I have been reporting on patents for years,
and I know a credible witness like Mitchell when I see one.
So the judge is just major wrongo there.

Anyway it's all about the copyrights, and if Oracle get
their judgement of copyrightability and then manage to get
another case, and then do a better job of convincing a jury
than they did last time, then Google are like totally
doomed. Anyone who thinks that is unlikely probably hasn't
done all the research I've done.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

And did I mention that... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT
And did I mention that... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 04:03 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 )