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
Judge Alsup's reasoning | 236 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Alsup's reasoning
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:48 AM EDT
I am not a lawyer, so the following might be rubbish:

Maybe the judge wants to figure out why Oracle was going almost nuclear because
of just nine lines of code. I.e. if it was just general stupidity of Oracle, or
a planed campaign, abusing his court room as part of the campaign?

Maybe (yes, I can dream) it is about sanctions?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Alsup's reasoning
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 01:06 AM EDT
Here is a simple explanation of why the Judge has ordered this:

1) You are allowed to claim anything you like in a court of law and you can't
be sued for slander, defamation, libel etc. as otherwise the legal system would

be completely broken.

2) Journalists are allowed to report anything that happens in a court and they
can't be used for slander, defamation, libel etc. as otherwise freedom of the
press would be completely broken.

3) Oracle appears to have paid 'journalists' to repeat the claims made in court

as fact. Because those claims are now being made outside of court, they don't
have the courts protection against being sued. Because the 'journalist' is
acting as a paid agent of Oracle they are no longer protected by freedom of
the press.

So this isn't a first amendment issue - this is just a did Oracle pay someone to

defame Google issue.

cheers
Danack

[ 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 )