Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT |
I guess that a good number of other US Software companies will be talking
earnestly to their lawyers about the possible implications of this case to them.
As has been said, Oracle can't have it both ways despite their repeated attempts
to do so.
I guess that the Judge is not best impressed with Oracle over their attempts to
bring back the '720 patent even though it was dismissed with predjuice. Surely
even a fresh law grad knows that something 'dismissed with predjuice' can't be
brought back to life unless there has been something in the order of a 9.0 level
earthquake.
(in view of the location of the case, I hope that I am not tempting fate
here...)
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
Judge: Reserving on the issue of whether SSO is a copyrightable
issue. That way, it would be easy for the court of appeals to reverse without a
new trial.
On the other hand, telling the jury that the two-faced
plaintiff has made a complete mess up of the whole issue, but not to let it bias
them in any way would be immensely satisfying!--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
.
-------------"Is there any possibility the Judge could / would hold
judgement on this to allow the jury to return a verdict, and then pull this out
if necessary? Or is this an issue that has to be resolved straight
away?"----------
He has to instruct the jury correctly. If the basis of the claim is the
copyright registration, he will instruct the jury accordingly.
[Did all the lawyers miss this? Did Oracle know and try and slide it by? Did
Google know, trap, and wait to pounce? This is better than any mystery.]
.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
As the judge said, it wouldn't be fair to
leave this out in the weeds. It's a Rule
50 motion, so he has to rule.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
I just read GOOGLE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW ON SECTIONS OF
COUNT VIII OF ORACLE’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
twice. (Document 984) There is just
nothing remaining for the
jury to decide until and unless the judge makes a
ruling
denying Google's motion. Goggle has such powerful arguments
in so many
ways it just wouldn't make any sense for the jury
to continue.
What is
happening in the court room right now, as
I speak? There must have been a tweet
by someone? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
Indeed, as noted by others this has to be ruled on pretty much right away, as it
goes to the heart of Google's de minimus claims. Note how the judge is unhappy
Google's even trying to bring in de minimus as a defense when the entire work
asserted by Oracle as infringed has been copied wrt SSO (which will be
considered as copyrightable when evaluating fair use defense); elsewhere,
though, he complains (I think it was regarding the whole timsort/rangecheck
issue? Not sure.) about Oracle basically trying to arbitrarily subdivide the
copyright claim in order to defeat de minimus by claiming whatever is asserted
at the moment was subject to 100% copying. If Oracle can *ONLY* claim that the
copyright of Java as a whole was violated, then at a minimum de minimus is
arguably back in play because only 37 of the Java API packages have had their
SSO copied. That's not even getting into the question of whether Oracle has met
relevant burden of proof to ownership of SSO on the relevant portion of Java...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|