decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

The previous decision on the 50(a) motion | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Google's Turn - Files JMOL Motion re rangeCheck function ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
I'd think Google has at least half a shot at this one. To put it into
perspective, the period at the end of this final sentence is more quantitatively
important to this work than those 9 lines of code are to the J2SE code base, and
nobody in their right mind would claim copyright infringement on it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:32 AM EDT
If any are required

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT
For the interesting but unrelated stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT
Please put the news pick title in the title of your comment

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES here
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:37 AM EDT
Tanks once again to the volunteers. Please keep up this good work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boies and Dog versus World
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:50 AM EDT
It's deja vu all over again, with talented lawyers fending off ankle biting from
another Boies plaintiff.

I wonder how that guy gets his clients?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google's Turn - Files JMOL Motion re rangeCheck function ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT

I'm beginning to think this lawsuit was just a battle/negotiation about databases, Oracle's really money maker.

An article at Slashdot today 'NSA Mimics Google ...' would seem to indicate Google could come out into the BIG database business, like Terabyte big, with their internal product called BigTable.

Maybe Oracle would have been working on a settlement that would license BigTable or a non-compete agreement. If Oracle had won their lawsuit, they would have been in a good position to get a settlement, public and private. Low cash settlement for the public and with the non-compete agreement private.

Sort of a 'gentlemen's agreement. Google you stay out of the database markets, and we, Oracle will stay out of the cell phone market.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The previous decision on the 50(a) motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT
You can find all those referenced docket number filings on our Oracle v. Google Timeline page. But I'll make it easy for you:
One thing that P.J. didn't include (unless I just didn't see it) is Judge Alsup's decision on the original Rule 50(a) motion. That was covered in this story. It strikes me as a bit fuzzy, so maybe Google has a chance, but I doubt it.

Judge Alsup didn't say it was de minimis, but he downplayed the significance.
Oracle has made much of nine lines of code that crept into both Android and Java. This circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of appeals.
After explaining the circumstances, he just says that Google admitted copying the lines and says that he was finished talking about it.
Since the remainder of this order addresses only the issue concerning structure, sequence and organization, and since rangeCheck has nothing to do with that issue, rangeCheck will not be mentioned again, but the reader will please remember that it has been readily conceded that these nine lines of code found their way into an early version of Android.
At the bottom, he clearly found for Google with respect to SSO, which was part of the same Rule 50(a) motion (Dkt. No. 984), but didn't specifically say anything about rangeCheck. That and the "To the extent..." language would seem to imply a no.
To the extent stated herein, Google’s Rule 50 motions regarding copyrightability are GRANTED (Dkt. Nos. 984, 1007).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The use of the word "the"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 09:02 AM EDT
The range check code is better described as analogous to a cliche or idiom, such as "Once upon a time" or "Please stay on the line, your call will be answered shortly". The difference is that while no significant work would be able to avoid using the word "the", a work could easily avoid any given idiom or cliche - even though any given use is hardly worth a second thought, let alone a jury trial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )