3 ms·

Having read this article it reminds me somewhat of tactics in movies where lawyers deliberately ask an inflammatory question in front of a jury purely for the p

Having read this article it reminds me somewhat of tactics in movies where lawyers deliberately ask an inflammatory question in front of a jury purely for the purpose of planting a seed, and before anyone can yell objection they immediately retract knowing that the damage has been done. The judge may strike it from the record, the judge may tell the jury to disregard it, but you can't unthink or unhear something that's been said. The bell has already been rung. I don't (or can't, I'm unsure) believe that lawyers of this caliber make mistakes like this. So what was her play by doing this? Did it pay off?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I suspect (but do not know) that this is information that Google doesn't want out there. It costs them an information edge in negotiations that may cost them hundreds of millions of dollars (again, my guess). So it may be very painful for Google to have this information out. Oracle may have done this deliberately just to make the lawsuit more painful to Google. The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt."
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt." To continue down this Machiavellian rabbit-hole; this then is Google saying to all lawyers who might agree to cooperate with Oracle in similarly murky shenanigans in the future "We will come after you"
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    Reminds me of Australian Federal Parliament. The previous Prime Minister obstructed the government of the day when he was an opposition leader by stopping "pairs" - where if one member of parliament could not be present the opposition agrees to have a member abstain from voting. He did that in a hung parliament, now they are in government the Labor party are doing the same hardball tactics. It's making the government's life hell.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

I suspect (but do not know) that this is information that Google doesn't want out there. It costs them an information edge in negotiations that may cost them hundreds of millions of dollars (again, my guess). So it may be very painful for Google to have this information out. Oracle may have done this deliberately just to make the lawsuit more painful to Google. The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt."

sangnoir 10y ago
> The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt." To continue down this Machiavellian rabbit-hole; this then is Google saying to all lawyers who might agree to cooperate with Oracle in similarly murky shenanigans in the future "We will come after you"
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Reminds me of Australian Federal Parliament. The previous Prime Minister obstructed the government of the day when he was an opposition leader by stopping "pairs" - where if one member of parliament could not be present the opposition agrees to have a member abstain from voting. He did that in a hung parliament, now they are in government the Labor party are doing the same hardball tactics. It's making the government's life hell.