Testimony on Amendment 2
March 24 2010
While we all appreciate the efforts of the Groklaw reporters, the report on day
12 is frustrating. This was absolutely crucial testimony from Novell's two
witnesses on the intent of the amended APA, and I'm not sure what happened. We
need someone with access to the daily transcripts to help us out.
04:42 PM EDT
I purchased the transcript
March 24 2010
So I could show you how much of the testimony you are not getting from the
reports. You are hearing exactly what PJ wants you to hear. Not very much. I
hope you will be very surprised on Friday.
Just two more example of how inaccurate and biased Groklaw reporters are: Mr
Hatch did not cross Allison Amadian Mr. Normand did. Second Allison Amadian
had her rear end handed to her for 45 min. by Mr. Normand and all Groklaw
reported was 2 paragraphs!!
SCO's Mr. Hatch cross-examined and tried to undermine her expertise in licensing
through the wording of the Amendment 2 and also attempted to elicit that the
APA, if it conveyed a license, would have been an implied license (she averred
it was an explicit grant of rights, just not using the word
"license"). Mr. Hatch was trying to show that had it been an implied
license, Santa Cruz would have been unable to protect itself by making
infringement claims against others.
There were lots of questioning on meanings of various language and phrases used
in both the APA and Amendment 2. Mr. Hatch referred to the language of Amendment
2 where it might be read that should Santa Cruz "require" a copyright,
that a process would be triggered to obtain it. Ms. Amadian testified that was
never her intent in drafting that language. On examination about why Amendment 2
can be read as ambiguous, she said that in a perfect world she would have
drafted it from "whole cloth," but that in negotiations some ambiguity
must be accepted to "get the deal done." She said that knowing Steve
Sabbath (whom she'd described earlier as a bit of a "screamer"), he
wouldn't have accepted a complete change of his language (from his draft).
06:54 PM EDT
Chris Brown vs. anonymous
March 24 2010
Chris has quite a track record. He has been the main reporter on the Utah
hearings, and he has NEVER been significantly inaccurate.
Now some anonymous person says that this report is completely off the mark, on
the basis of information known to anonymous but unavailable to us.
And, said anonymous claims that PJ is misleading us. PJ, who has for years
provided sources, links to all her information (along with expert interpretation
and the occasional snark). And to counter this, anonymous gives us... his
say-so. No documentation, just a claim. Sorry, that's not good enough. One
unsubstantiated claim does NOT trump a seven-year-long track record of
Hmm. Claims of inside information that will dash our hopes, nothing but
innuendo as to what the information actually is, and personal attacks on people
who have been shown to be accurate for years. This really sounds like Biff to
09:09 PM EDT
Copyright 2010 http://www.groklaw.net/