Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:46 AM EDT |
To me, this motion is Oracle's lawyers throwing a pile of junk onto the wall,
and seeing what sticks.
Can somebody explain why Oracle is citing court cases that support Google's
position, as a reason for the judge to rule their way?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
Does Google really need to reply to all the points that have already been
decided in its favor, or risk that they get granted in an appeal?
This really looks like burning money on lawyers without rhyme or reason.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 07:13 AM EDT |
Half out of topic..
Florian Mueller just published a rant in favor of his Client
Oracle.
The problem: on his "Blogger" page you read THIS:
"..His consulting services are available directly (contact
form, LinkedIn profile) as well as through two primary
research firms (Gerson Lehrman Group, Coleman Research
Group) serving the financial community. (In order to avoid
conflicts of interest, Florian does not hold or initiate
transactions in any technology stocks or derivatives
thereof.).."
http://www.blogger.com/profile/13298342449544124176
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
Does Google even have to bother with a reply?
Oracle have virtually admitted that the judge will have to go back on everything
he's already said so what would be the point?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|