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
I think he won't let the jury know until phase one is over. | 238 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I think he won't let the jury know until phase one is over.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:05 PM EDT

Well, we will see.

But Google, by implication, suggests that had Oracle proven authorship of each of the 37 apis (I'm confused, are these packages or classes?), then there is an issue for trial.

As the Judge asked, "You thought about that, today?" by which I understand that Judge Alsup believes this should have been raised in pre-trial motions.

I would expect it likely that the Judge will agree with Google, but give Oracle a chance to develop the evidence of authorship. Isn't the implication that Sun wrote one of the substantial apis and its documentation sufficient for it to be in Court regarding infringement? Clearly, though, that should reduce the upside for Oracle as the amount of infringement dissipates.

Should Sun be allowed to provide proof of authorship, Google may ask to take depositions in which to challenge the authorship claim and, just like that, there's a delay in the trial. Which would not make the Judge happy as this would be a terrible burden on the jury.

Mistrial? Suggest very strongly that Google stipulate that Oracle as successor to Sun are the authors of java.lang.*, java.net.*, and thus may proceed with a claim of infringement, even though the copyright was as a compilation and not collection? Solmonic wisdom applied and the claims are whittled down to over 18 apis that Google stipulates as authored by Sun?

But I don't see the Judge letting Google, even as they are right, make the last nine days in court a total waste.

I have always felt that Judge Alsup, while giving the parties full opportunity to present their cases, thought that this should have been settled before trial. Google seems to be right, and the Judge doesn't want to ignore the point, but I don't think he's happy that Google sprung this one at such an advanced stage of the dispute.

[ 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 )