On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:37:42 +0200, Jon Kiparsky <[email protected]>
wrote:
Here's a third option: this is a legal argument, and the cited facts are
the ones which support google's winning the case, regardless of the
technological facts.
I'm sure I don't have the expertise to judge on the technical details,
but
I do think this is at least plausible as a third option. Under this
scenario, it'd be impossible to accept any of Google's trial arguments as
having any implications about Google's beliefs regarding the technology:
the only purpose of those statements is to win a trial.
Sure I've thought that legal arguments are a parallel world built mostly
for attorneys to make money and not necessarily related to reality. But
what I reported is not the discussion in the trial, it's the content of an
internal email exchanged years ago among Page and some Google engineers,
not in a trial context.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
[email protected]
http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
