|
| Authored by: alisonken1 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
Short item in the "Title" and longer explanation/surrounding
text in the "Comment" box
Kerrections -> Corrections
---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: designerfx on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:02 PM EDT |
| off topic comments here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: designerfx on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:03 PM EDT |
| newspicks discussion here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Reforming Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:24 AM EDT
- Reforming Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:50 AM EDT
- Wright Bros. - Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Wright Bros. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:37 AM EDT
- Greed - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:28 AM EDT
- Wright Bros. - Authored by: marcosdumay on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
Is it just me, or is Google rubbing it in, that the places and people who wrote
positive things about this case, that happened to support Google's view, are
mostly non-profits with longstanding histories of defending consumers and the
noble principles this country was founded on?
That the companies that Google supports are non-profits with noble goals for the
betterment of society, all in line with Google's pledge to do no evil? This
would be hilarious if not for the fact that these people have now all been
dragged through the mud at the insistence of a judge, prompted by a falsehood,
that the people at MoFo had to know was a falsehood.
And now, there it is for all the world to see, the dirty underhanded and sleazy
trick pulled by MoFo. They will be forever tarnished by this. It is their
reputation now, that is the most damaged. But they did this to themselves. I'm
pretty sure, I'd never want to be associated with such a firm now. If I ever
wanted to be a lawyer. I don't have what it takes. I could never do this kind of
thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
The jury has already decided and the Court is presumed that it can set aside
it's prejudices, so why was this order issued in the first place?
Shouldn't these issues be for the Appeals Court if raised in the trial (and as
far as I recall they weren't)? But if the trial is over why is the judge raising
them now?
Color me confused.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
Well, for what it's worth, Oracle's and Sun's duplicity is now clear in court
records.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: artp on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
For those who want to keep transcribing documents from the
Comes v. MS trial into Geeklog marked-up HTML.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
.
Yo' Honor, why do you believe Google
didn't comply with your order to
disclose paid commentary?
What item or items cause you to
conclude they did not comply?
You have made a "read my-mind"
order that further asperses litigious
efficiency. Would that the parties just
ask you! Would the answer
disclose too much?
.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: odysseus on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
Me! I've posted publicly on Twitter, G+ and Groklaw about this case, and I have
been in receipt of Google's largesse through KDE, Google Summer of Code, and
various FOSS conferences. I'm a paid shill for Google on this case and proud of
it, yet I get no credit!
Yes, Oracle, that is sarcasm you detect there...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
On hand we have Timothy Berners-Lee, James Gosling, Bruce Perens, Tim Bray, Mark
Lemley and William Patry.
On the other hand we have... Flo.
Surely a perfect
example to include in any dictionary.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
As in either of the following:
1. Indications that one or more persons disclosed by Google
should also have been on Oracle's list (Such as Mr. Gosling
perhaps, Google insinuates that).
2. Indications of what a compliant search of records would
entail and that this is obviously more than what Oracle has
done its filing
Just an open question.
On the Larry E side of things, is this list reasonably
complete or did it mostly limit itself to people and
organisations mentioned in Oracle and Google filings? Given
the vastness of Google activities, I would have expected a
longer list, including at least some irrelevant
organizations whose staff happen to have openly commented.
The most obvious omission from the list is: "Oracle
Corporation is a supplier of multiple products used by
Google, including the Java SDK products at issue in this
trial. At least the following Oracle Corporation officers,
employees and other representatives (other than counsel)
have made comments on this trial: ..."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
