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
Google was waiting to play this card! | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Memories of SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
"It's like someone suing you for stealing something when they
don't even have evidence that they ever owned it."

Is this standard industry proactice or are these cases particularly bad?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google was waiting to play this card!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT
Here are two stories addressing the jury instructions to show that the Jury was not being asked about ownership. It should be also clear (especially now) that it was not in Google's interest to dig into ownership at that time.

The first Groklaw story was October 19, 2011 - see Oracle v. Google - Trial Briefs, Special Verdict Forms, and Jury Instructions. In that story, it is interesting that Oracle did not comprehend what the copyright registration as the first question only pertained to Oracle’s copyrights in the Java software platform and none referred to de minimis copying (or perhaps someone in Oracle's team was aware of the potential issue). Yet Google used phases like sufficient amount that, in hindsight, clearly indicate Google knew what was actually copyrighted.

More recently was this April 26 2012 story Oracle v. Google - Day 9 Filings - Jury Instructions on Copyright. Even Mark said ... therefore what constitutes the "work as a whole" that is at issue is manifest in Google's response to the proposed jury instructions!

[ 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 )