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 Jury rendered any willfulness moot | 276 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Weren't the willfulness comments from the lindholm email?
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 02:21 AM EDT
Two things. We here at Groklaw read the same
documents, but we didn't write breathless reports
about how much money Oracle might win, because
we know the US legal system, and what you ask for
in a complaint is always the upper limit of what
you can ask for, because later you can't get more
than what you asked for, normally. As in all things
legal, there are footnotes. But that's why you see
such huge numbers in complaints.

But nobody believes, or nobody I know belives, those
numbers are how it will all play out. It's just
the way you file. So we didn't get all excited
about how it might play out like that, because
it was ridiculous.

Yes, Oracle said it, but that doesn't make it
likely. Part of analyzing a document is knowing
what the lay of the land is, so you know what
the possibilities are in real life. And if there
are several ways it can play out, you have a duty
to explain what they all are, not just one that
you like.

And the second point is this: one of the things that
I noticed was mentioning the money damages figures over
and over, and this is another example of it. I wrote
that I'd show that, and this is one place where I did.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If you wish to defend FM's "facts as presented"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT

Perhaps you could suggest to Florian that he author something like:

    Google has applied for costs to be paid by Oracle and since the case resulted in a damages amount of $0 to be paid to Oracle, Google may have grounds to receive costs.
After all... such would be just as factually correct as what Florian has previously authored.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Jury rendered any willfulness moot
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT
Ultimately it did not appear that the Jury was swayed by that
draft email. Further the Judge never contradicted that view
once he had been given the full story.

[ 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 )