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
This is Oracle's time to spin the case. | 396 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle's API Kool-Aid
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
IMHO, I would not be so quick to challenge the motives of the judge.

I would expect that he is starting to create an image in his mind on why a clean
room is required. He also has to phrase his questions so as to not sound bias or
leading.

Once he understands the requirement of a clean room development environment, and
I am sure that he is close to being there, then he will understand why Google
and other companies use that process.

I think that he has a good handle of where everything is going and he may have
already taken a position and now is just dotting the I's and crossing the T's to
make a solid ruling.

I like this judge and his approach. No nonsense, directive and does not leave
anything on the table that may be misunderstood.

CC :>)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is Oracle's time to spin the case.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
We are currently in Oracle's time to make their case. Mostly, Google is running
interference, pulling them up on the odd point to break their flow, to keep the
jury aware of the stunts being pulled.
Next up, Google will state their case. Expect to see it reduced to the threads
it is. Google will clearly show how, why and where an API is unprotected, and
just how minimus their de is, and how their clean their room was.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge and Jury are different
Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT
The judge is presumed not to be confused by the law (for long).

The jury are presumed to be totally confused by the law (except for the judges
instructions).

---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle's API Kool-Aid
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
Sometimes judges ask questions they know the answer just to see how *you* would
answer.

Once I have seen some posters here saying "beware of judges asking stupid
questions. Usually it is a trap."

We will need the full report to have an idea of what this is about.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Could the judge be asking for the jury's benefit?
Authored by: neutro511 on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT
I certainly hope that's the case.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle's API Kool-Aid- I don't think so.
Authored by: mirrorslap on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT
Judge Alsup has made it clear (to me, anyway) that he needs to understand and
the jury needs to understand what an API is, in order to reach a fair ruling.
Oracle has presented what *they* say an API is, which leave's everyone
scratching their heads, saying, "wha...???" or worse. Now that Google
has a
chance to present their case, they are telling Judge Alsup *and* the jury what
an
API is... and what Google has said and is saying seems reasonable and
understandable.

So no, Judge Alsup has not drunk the "Oracle API Kool-Aid". He is
doing his best
to get at the truth of the matter (and get the jury there, too) to ensure a fair
trial.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle's API Kool-Aid
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:07 AM EDT
It really seems to me that the Oracle team is just making stuff up. Saying you need a license to do a clean room implementation is identical to saying APIs can be protected by copyright.
The judge was asking why, if APIs aren't protected by copyright, should Google have deemed it necessary to perform a clean room analysis of those APIs? There was no suggestion of any need for "a license to do a clean room implementation"; and even if there were then that suggestion should be ascribed to Judge Alsup, not Oracle.
First Oracle said the legal landscape has changed since 1996 and even though APIs could not be copyrighted back then, now they can. I've seen no evidence to back up this extraordinary claim.
You seem to be mischaracterizing what Oracle said, or perhaps you care to cite some other statement than, "BUT IN THAT 15 YEARS LOTUS V. BORLAND HASN'T SWEPT THE JUDICIAL LANDSCAPE. COURTS OF APPEALS HAVEN'T ADOPTED IT. DISTRICT COURTS HAVEN'T ADOPTED IT. THERE HAS BEEN NO DECISION IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT, IN PARTICULAR, THAT ADOPTS THE KEY LOGIC MOVE THAT THE FIRST CIRCUIT MADE IN LOTUS V. BORLAND, ..." -- which is the closest thing I can find in the record to your paraphrase.
A few days later in a tacit admission that their extraordinary claims were fibs, they admitted to the judge that they were actually asking him to make "new law".
The "new law" -- scary quotes and all -- was PJ's rephrasing of what Oracle actually stated, i.e., "The parties agree no case addresses directly whether the Copyright Act protects a computer programming language."

It is misguided to characterize this statement as Oracle asking the judge to "make new law". The law was "made" by Congress back in 1978; the judge is being asked to adjudicate it. Granted case law is recognized in the U.S., but it is borderline disingenuous to suggest that one side in a court case -- to any degree more than other -- is asking that "new law" be made when they seek an interpretation of existing statutes.
Now Oracle is at it again trying to sneak their unsupported claim through the back door by saying you need a license to do a clean room implementation.
Again, Oracle has not suggested this; in fact, I don't recall Oracle ever suggesting that Google's approach qualified as a "clean room implementation" (and Judge Alsup has made some queries which suggest his own uncertainty of this).

It is rather disappointing to see this continual mischaracterization of the issues at stake and statements being wrongly paraphrased that is occurring during Groklaw's discussion of this case. One would have hoped that even if the coverage were not entirely objective, at least the case would be accurately portrayed.

[ 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 )