4 ms·
Hmm, it seems to be more about objecting to the specific expert witness they're using: "In April, Microsoft sent Google a subpoena asking for a variety of info
by jdp23 15y ago
Hmm, it seems to be more about objecting to the specific expert witness they're using:
"In April, Microsoft sent Google a subpoena asking for a variety of information, including confidential source code.... In its motion for sanctions, Google says it should have had a chance to review the credentials of the expert in question, Dr. Robert Stevenson, and it should have had a chance to object. The motion notes that Stevenson has done consulting work for Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ), “both direct competitors of Google.” Now Google wants the ITC judge overseeing the Microsoft v. Motorola case to stop Stevenson from testifying."
- kenjackson 15y agoThe real issue is that Google has the right to review the experts that look at Google confidential code. MS is supposed to disclose these efforts to Google. MS disclosed this expert to Motorola, but not to Google, hence the problem. From what I can tell Google has a good case on this, but it's far less controversial than the title would lead one to believe. MS will probably have to get a new expert and light smack on the hand for not following protocol. These types of things happen all the time in court cases.