|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
Yeah. Methinks that perhaps the judge did not believe Dr. Mitchell...
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
That's really harsh. The judge clearly goes out of his way to make this explicit
comment on the value of Mitchell's testimony. That will surely be the end of his
expert witness career.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mexaly on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
The benefit of the doubt having been spent, the Honorable Judge is now
delivering justice.
---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
This is just entirely wishful thinking on my part, with not a shred of evidence
to support my whacky theory, but I read those closing comments and could not
help but wish that the Court was telegraphing a message to Oracle:-
"Guys, if there is an offer to settle on the table from Google you should
take it. I guarantee it's more than you're going to get from me..."
Then again, another part of me would like to see the Court rule that the SSO of
an API is not protected by copyright. I'd hate for that uncertainty to come back
and bite the FOSS community at a later date...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
Actually, I think the judge is being fair.
He did not say he shared the belief, he just stated that it is reasonable to
impeach a witness by confronting him with his own conflicting statements. And
that it is reasonable to evaluate someone's credibility, based on changing
stories.
If you are a judge, assessing witness credibility (and in a jury trial assessing
witness credibility assesments), probably is a daily pasttime. Maybe this
addition was needed to let Oracle and the appeals court know that this was not a
close call.
Nice to see him backing up the jury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
| I can't help but feel that Judge Alsup got this one exactly right. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
| /Arthur [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
| Dr. Mitchell should use care if he chooses to read a hard copy of this ruling -
this one likely renders his expert-witness career a rather terminal paper
cut!
Of course, he could go all Blank Knight on us, and claim it "was only a
symbolic paper cut, and to pay no mind to all that red stuff".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
.
Judge Alsup will remember Oracle's use of this expert's
conflicting testimony. They were pinned down in their claim
language and contradicted by the science. So this supposed
expert bravely, if not foolishly, re-took the stand and
changed up on his testimony, --contradicting himself and
yielding a slam dunk to Google.
It is very controversial. He may be ruined as an expert
since merely explaining this episode to other lawyers and
juries will mangle his credibility and subvert his
expertise.
Google will remind Alsup when they go for legal fees.
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
Will Oracle make Mitchell pay back his consulting fee for
doing such a lousy job that the judge called him out on it?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
Could BSF and Dr. Mitchell be charged with prostitution for taking Oracle's
money, and doing what they did?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:04 AM EDT |
I trust Judge Alsup will not get carried away, like the first judge in
Microsoft's antitrust trial did.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nuthead on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
No, it's not harsh. It's truthful and he should be glad the court merely pointed
this fact out rather than something more severe. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
