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
THE COURT: I know what Bayesian probabilities are. | 145 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
THE COURT: I know what Bayesian probabilities are.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 24 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT
Ya gotta love da judge that knows the subject.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Will be the basis of an Oracle Appeal
Authored by: argee on Sunday, June 24 2012 @ 10:28 PM EDT
They will appeal because the judge was knowlegeable of
math, programming, science and statistics.

They will say this is not a "normal person" or a "peer."
They will state that an impartial person is basically one
that is educated solely by the opposing lawyers, and he is
supposed to decide accordingly.

This, of course, is what happens in Jury Selection: choose
the most ignorant (not the dumbest) of the bunch. But, in
this case, the Judge was sharp and knowledgeable, not
ignorant, much to Oracle's dismay.


---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Best bit of entertainment all week
Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:36 AM EDT
Was Norton publicly telling all and sundry that Oracle's case was worthless,
when he reduced the sample size to one?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Let's say that the patents were not valid, but they were infringed."
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 08:54 AM EDT
You have to admit that this requires chuzpe. In particular since the
infringement of copyrights has nothing whatsoever to do with the infringement of
patents. In fact, you can't infringe the copyright of a patent since the whole
point of a patent is disclosure of a method in the form of a text placed in the
public domain (with regard to copyright) in a very specific way.

You can almost equally well say "let's say that we want to be claiming
obscenely incoherent nonsense".

[ 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 )