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
Pass the popcorn | 305 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Pass the popcorn
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 | # ]

Pass the popcorn
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 | # ]

Pass the popcorn
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 | # ]

Pass the popcorn
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 | # ]

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 )