Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Even if "consulting services" were unrelated, they'll still be on the list | 236 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

If Judge Alsup has been reading, he's looking for FM! (and not just Groklaw) (n/t)

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT

n/t

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Even if "consulting services" were unrelated, they'll still be on the list

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT

You couldn't escape it that way - the order is *very* broad - it's not
"people paid to make comments", it's anyone who "reported or
commented on any issues in this case" that "received money (other than
normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of
this action". Which interpreted literally would mean pretty much anyone
could be on the list for either party when you think about advertising etc.

We might see malicious compliance microsoft style by presenting a ridiculously
long list, but that'd be easier for google than oracle (and oracle are obviously
more likely to be involved in this).

Interesting times ahead.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Even if "consulting services" were unrelated, they'll still be on the list - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 08:26 AM EDT

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 )