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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Good luck with that... | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
GOOD QUESTION FOR GROKLAW.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT
We need to know the legal procedure for correcting false assumptions of fact
which have been, *inaccurately*, embedded into legal precedents.

This has happened before: Victorian England had some astounding examples of
blatant untruths which were "precedent" and so which the courts
assumed were true. Dickens even talks about some of them. There must have been
a corrective procedure, because they did clean that mess up.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Good luck with that...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 08:45 PM EDT
Above, in PoIR's treatise, a judge is quoted from 1974,
saying...

"I am quite familiar with the legal doctrine that a new
program makes an old general purpose digital
computer into a new and different machine.
This court has been through that many times..."

So if this was back in ' 74 and already established
doctrine, how much more thoroughly entrenched it
must be today. As solid as the Rock of Glbralter. How
many times must that have been stated by now in a
court
of law? That alone makes it into Truth.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hmmm. They Assume Facts Not In Evidence? n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 09:56 PM EDT
.

[ 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 )