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
I'd argue Alsup needs anything not offered to commentators on a "FRAND" basis...esp sneak peeks! | 236 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Alsup Orders Financial Disclosure of Ties to Commentators in Oracle v Google ~pj
Authored by: mirrorslap on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT
Way to go, Judge Alsup! There is nothing like a bright light to make the
cockroaches scuttle for the shadows. And some highly-paid attorneys may soon
be able to add "cockroach wrangler" to their list of credits. Run, FM,
run!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Holly Cow! Apple'd Be Sweating Bullets w/ this Judge on Apple vs Samsung Case!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 06:59 PM EDT
I thought he was a great Judge, but this confirms he's even a
lot more than even that!!! :D

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'd argue Alsup needs anything not offered to commentators on a "FRAND" basis...esp sneak peeks!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 07:28 PM EDT
That is, if it isn't offered to all commentators, then it's a payment.

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hmm...is a slander or discipline case being set up? (Contradictions please...)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT
That is, Judge Alsup pretty clearly thinks the case was on the edge of legal,
wants to discount documentation with a paid viewpoint.

Is he setting up a slander case for Google, or maybe a disciplinary case against
BSF? Or is this additional appeal-proofing of some type? Or simply fodder for
the deliberations on costs?

Supporting statements/Opposing arguments anyone?

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

who requested the Judge Alsup Order?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 08:24 AM EDT
Did Oracle request a disclosure order? Did Google? Did Judge Alsup decide that
it was needed on his own?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • The Judge? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 11:22 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 )