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
Precisely my thinking | 280 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What a gallery of grotesques
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 09:34 AM EST
Question:
is it likely that all the anti-Google amici jumping in before Google's response brief actually gives Google the tactical advantage of being able to polish their response to deflect or rebut the arguments made?
I don't think that these are the actual amici briefs, just notices that these parties plan to file them. I'm not sure of the deadlines involved, but I think that Google will probably have to file their reply before the amici briefs are due.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What a gallery of grotesques ... INDEED!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 09:34 AM EST
Yes what a gallery of grotesques... especially by the MS-
Monopoly...

Maybe these guys are just not very confident in Oracles
legal representation, it sure looks that way to me :-)

It will be interesting to see what the briefs say, given the
complexity of the case and Judge Alsups efforts to make his
ruling appeals-proof, it must have been very tough for
those entities to come up with something relevant to say in
their briefs. They could easily all end up in the waste
paper bin. Or worse: they could have ended up collectively
shooting themselves in the foot, unless they were very
painstakinly coordinated (...) which in turn raises even
further issues. I hope the court takes a hard look at the
background situation going on here...

I don't know for sure, but I think the Appeals court has
the discretion to not even hear this case if they think it
has no serious merit and that its all bogus anyway.

It looks to me like some folks would like to introduce new
copyright law thru the courts, but normally its up to
congress to create new laws.

maybe time to get some more popcorn out. I am very confident
in Googles Copyright lawyers :-)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I was surprised by Netapp
Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 09:48 AM EST
What exactly does Netapp have in this game? I don't even
understand why they threw down on this.

One more thing to make my company aware of, I suppose.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Precisely my thinking
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 12:29 PM EST
The leaders of club Monster.

Google must have scared them badly if they are all trying to jump in so
frantically.

[ 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 )