|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
Oracle made their own bed, first trying to bamboozle the judge, then the jury.
If they had come out and explained it properly, the judge probably would have
decided a long time ago.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
APIs aren't clips of code one can invoke. That would be the implementation
behind an API. The API is the description of exactly how the calling program can
invoke the clips of code. It's the difference between a telephone and a
telephone number: the telephone is what rings and what the callee can pick up
and use to talk to me, the telephone number OTOH is the string I can dial to
call that telephone. The telephone itself can be a basic single-line handset, a
multi-line business phone, a line in a large PBX system, a cel phone, or even a
computer program (think Google Voice). There are a myriad of implementations of
a telephone, yet still one single phone number I can use to call it without
knowing or caring exactly what implementation it is. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mtew on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 11:11 PM EDT |
I suspect that they have some pretty strong opinions on what outcome is likely.
They just don't like those odds.
Webster: IIRC you are a lawyer. What basis would they have for a mistrial
motion?
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 03:50 AM EDT |
I don't think an appeal on the basis of mistrial will stick.
All precedent up until now says APIs aren't copyrightable. In
arguing that APIs are copyrightable, Oracle is trying to
invent a new legal concept which is completely in
contradiction with all prior case law.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
It was Oracle that stated there was a question of fact.
It was Oracle that stated there there is no supporting case law for their
position.
They got the trial they asked for.
How does them stretching established legal definition, getting what they want,
and then being told
"Thanks for presenting your evidence, as a matter of law, these bit gets
thrown out, and the Jury gets to decide whether they copied the book, after
you've taken out the unprotected bits of the book. All else is admitted, now
let's do damages"
Please explain how this results in prejudice?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: awkScooby on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 12:51 PM EDT |
Could he avoid a mistrial by telling the jury that he will decide this
particular issue as a matter of law, but not telling the jury what his decision
is until the jury has decided the remaining issues? The jury then could decide
if the 9 lines of code belong to Oracle, and if so, if their use constitutes
fair use.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
Since they have been listening to this API-"design" mumbo-jumbo,
Oracle can argue that the issue's disappearance hurts their
credibility.
Does it really? If the judge says, "after seeing all
the evidence and hearing all the arguments and all the
testimony, I have concluded that the question of the APIs being infringed can be
decided as a matter of law, rather than a question of fact, so you will not be
required to rule on this question."
As a juror, I think my main feeling
on hearing that would be relief! :)
But both sides are presenting
evidence, argument, and testimony on the question, so I don't see how I could be
accused of feeling any prejudice towards either side, simply because all that
material presented by both sides eventually turned out to be irrelevant
to any decision I might have to make. I might feel a little peeved at the
judge for making me sit through all that, but prejudice towards Oracle
or Google? I don't see it.
--- Do not meddle in the affairs of
Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
This is part A of the trial. If Oracle asks for a mistrial,
the entire trial; ie, parts A, B, C go down with it. How
long before Judge Alsup, or another judge, will be able to
set up a new trial?
And they can't move venue. A mistrial is not cancellation,
it is rather an all new trial, with an all new Jury, etc.
So the trial is on, in this venue, either now, or later.
Later=most likely after USPTO rules on everything and all
the motions are settled. My estimate is mid 2014.
What Oracle ought to do, if they are allowed to, is to
allow for dismissal without prejudice. They can then
continue to threaten, and file for a new trial with all
different and better patents, copyright allegations (if
any) etc.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|