|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
Okay! I'm the OP, and I finally understand that this wasn't
simply a wrong decision, that by ruling against the de-
minimus defence (which I too think is correct) that he's
balanced harm and advantage to Google, and given Oracle a
win which is a little poisoned. Thank you PJ.
But I guess it depends on the resulting damages whether it's
best for Google.
Although I see the logic, I still don't know how he could
come to the conclusion that a reasonable jury couldn't think
it was minimal. Then again, I can also see how a loss on
this could be used by Oracle to carry on.
And I also am not keen on the precedent that this sets. It's
9 lines that were included by mistake out of millions. And
they are only there because of a gift to Sun. It seems
unjust to me.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IANALitj on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT |
I agree with PJ entirely.
I think that she correctly identified a flaw in the reasoning by which Judge
Alsup decided to give judgment on this issue to Oracle as a matter of law, as
they requested.
I agree that Judge Alsup pulled a neat trick on Oracle.
Beware of judges bearing gifts. After first giving Oracle just what they asked
for based on Mitchell's testimony, Judge Alsup has now handed Mitchell's head to
Google on a platter and has given Google ammunition for their appeal brief on
this issue.
In addition, by bestowing these gifts, he simplified the case, no matter what
the appeals court decides on this issue.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
