|Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT|
|Parsley is likely to haunt Oracle's lawyers. That a case with only parsley|
shouldn't have been brought to court in after being tried in the court of public
opinion for billions, billed as good versus evil.
You'd think Oracle is in the position of attacking claim construction, in that
any clarification offered to the jury is based solidly on it (See OraGoogle-137,
both dynamically and symbolic and numeric references in opposition). I don't
see any timely objections, Oracle waited instead until they developed their
parsley strategy approaching trial phase 2 (OraGoogle-1134), conflating symbolic
and numeric references in original and new instructions in expert testimony.
If Oracle hadn't tried to bushwhack Google at trial perhaps they would have
fared better. Alternatively their case might have fallen apart before reaching
a jury. As observers we can contemplate this strategy likely came from
BS&F, the objective to get the case before a jury. But they can't like what
the jury did with it.
The worrying aspect for the aficionado is whether any CAFC de novo claim
construction will remand to another jury, with Google forearmed mind you. I'd
consider it unlikely after a bit of googling that Judge Alsup's claim
construction will get overturned.
The center ring is still the API SSO copyright question. Will we see copyrights
as even more parsley?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]