decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The problem for the good judge has been Oracle's misdirection | 237 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The problem for the good judge has been Oracle's misdirection
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 06:27 AM EDT
Frankly I suspect that he needed to get the parties together like this under
oath and court rules, in order that the actual case could be understood.

There's no reason he would really have been able to make a ruling on the
subject before the trial, as Oracle were intentionally covering up their case
and making it so vague that it couldn't be really understood by a non-
technical subject expert (and even then, with the shifting terminology and
hand waving nonsense it hasn't been easy).

Their case is absurd, and (from what I understand, IANAL), it has taken the
trial so far to bring out some details in order that there could even be a legal

ruling.

This language/spec copyright-on-the-implementation nonsense surely has to
be a point of law, but until Oracle's claims could be properly understood, that

probably wasn't apparent - which is the fault of Oracle, not the judge. I
assume they were hoping to make an emotive case to the jury and win despite
the law.

It's a shame that the jury had to see this stuff, as it's probably very
confusing
and distracting for them. Hopefully they are following well, and not letting the

legal circus distract from their real task.

If they are asked for an advisory opinion or whatever, and the judge is forced
to go against them due to the law, I would guess it would be demoralising,
however it does seem important to keep them involved.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A good magician can fool you in his own environment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 08:17 AM EDT
but put him in a controlled setting with an expert observer and defined rules
(Randi et al), and we can clearly see the trickery involved.

There's a lot of sleight of mouth going on here, but I'm sure it will be exposed
by
the process.

(note I have great respect for magicians as entertainers, it's an analogy)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

People on Groklaw have been wondering about this for weeks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:10 AM EDT
Why waste the jury's time if the judge might end up deciding that APIs can't be copyrighted?
Which is exactly the same as saying the case about patents should be stayed until the USPTO gets its reading glasses on and properly reads the patents under re-exam.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Have Oracle explain what the SSO of an API is with specificity
Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:13 AM EDT

Yes! Make them put the entire thing up on a big chart, even the size of the wall, if it has to be. Then have the text that Google supposedly copied in red, while the rest is black. Finally, somehow have a reference to the copyright behind every single definition of each line of that chart. ie - "The copyright notice for max() is found in package/class/file whatever". So then they have a link to the copyright notice for the names of individual methods, but they are not in dispute. It is only the whole that is somehow greater than its parts that Google is accused of infringing. ...but then, where exactly is the copyright for the SSO found, anyhow?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

People on Groklaw have been wondering about this for weeks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 11:49 PM EDT
Perhaps the judge sees his approach as the fastest way to get Oracle to pin
itself down. Now Oracle must at least attempt the ambush before the end of the
trial. The problem I see here for Oracle is that Oracle is not ready to bet the
company on FUD and delay available in this trial. Google has it relatively easy,
their opponent has something to lose, Oracle has billions. Google may be able to
make a clear example for others relatively cheaply hear too.

I even see room for a settlement that pays Google not to search for prior art on
every Oracle software patent and share that with the USPTO.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )