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
Could an Oracle Win Against Google Blow Up the Cloud? | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Could an Oracle Win Against Google Blow Up the Cloud?
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT
Well, the Linux API is based on POSIX, which is a published standard, although I don't know what its terms of use are. It could also be considered to be based on xBSD, which is unencumbered as far as we can see.

However,if someone (SCO? (only kidding!) Attachmate? Maybe....) managed to claim ownership, it would also kill off Apple, as iOS is BSD based to an extent. And, some *nix APIs are found in the Redmond trashware. It would kill the entire industry, but only in the US, and would necessitate immediate government intervention.

But that AT&T vs BSDI (correct me if I have the name wrong) settlement almost certainly kills off any hope of action on *nix APIs by anyone.

I am not sure which other APIs are truly vital to the cloud. The network protocols seem to be public domain, or nearly so, and any application programming languages can always be replaced by something else.There are bound to be workarounds. Java is not needed, nor is the trashware .Net.

I just don't see any single point at which the cloud is vulnerable legally, where there are not already umpteem workarounds.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google Is Probably the Big Winner in First Phase of Oracle Trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
Ginny LaRoe well-written piece. She is an exclusively law/court reporter, as opposed to the other technology journalists.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Federal Circuit smacks trolls in holdover multidefendant suits NOT!
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
The Federal District basically granted a motion to ask the Eastern District to
reconsider but then explained how they could avoid really severing and
especially transferring the cases to other districts.

"In exercising its discretion, the district court should keep in mind that
even if joinder is not permitted under Rule 20, the district court has
considerable discretion to consolidate cases for discovery and for trial under
Rule 42 where venue is proper and there is only “a common ques-tion of law or
fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); see 9A Wright et al., supra, § 2382 (“[T]he
existence of a common question by itself is enough to permit consolidation under
Rule 42(a), even if the claims arise out of independent transac-tions.”). Common
pretrial issues of claim construction and patent invalidity may also be
adjudicated together through the multidistrict litigation procedures of 28
U.S.C. § 1407. See, e.g., In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig.,"

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge scolds Microsoft and Motorola for ‘hubris’ and arrogance in patent case
Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
This has got to be one of the most fascinating stories I have ever read about the current spate of Tech Wars. First you have the head line quote.

Judge scolds Microsoft and Motorola for ‘hubris’ and arrogance in patent case
Hubris? Isn't this the judge that decided US law trumps German law in Germany?

Then there is this which when you combine it with some of the comments from Judge Alsup shows the judiciary must be getting really frustrated with the non-sense from these companies.

“The court is well aware that it is being played as a pawn in a global industry-wide business negotiation,” said U.S. District Judge James Robart at the conclusion of the hearing.

Then.

Jenner said of Microsoft, “They preferred litigation, for strategic reasons, over engaging with Motorola.”
Saw that one coming.

Microsoft contends that Motorola made an unreasonable demand when it sought royalties of 2.25 percent on sales of products including Xbox 360 and Windows PCs in exchange for rights to Motorola video and wireless patents considered essential to industry standards.
Is it just me or does this sound like the company that makes more money from Andoid than they do from their own phone OS whining about being trolled? For real?

Link to the story

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google and Oracle Enter Round Two of Heavyweight Legal Fight
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT
Could anything be more obviously a concept?

"method and apparatus for resolving data references in generated code” and
“symbolic reference”?

Obviously "symbolic" manipulation is not a subject for patents... but
either language or mathematics. And since this is for a mathematical interpreter
then it is mathematical...

[ 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 )