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'm Confused | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
It makes sense - Google now know the API play Oracle are trying- next time round better prepared
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
Google always wanted specificity

Oracle not so much.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google argues you can't have a partial answer on question one
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT
Caleb Garling ‏ @CalebGarling

Google argues you can't have a partial answer on question one

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'm Confused
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT
That pretty much summarises my reading.

The copyright bit of the case was always headed to the Supremes the only
question was the precise route.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'm Confused
Authored by: eric76 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT

It sounds like Google is pushing for a mistrial, but if the Judge finds for Google on SSO, then all questions are answered and off we go for an appeal. Only needing a retrial if the Judge is overturned on appeal.

Why wait for the SSO? If it goes against Google, then wouldn't a motion for a mistrial be "untimely"?

Since the SSO issue is so controversial might the judge adopt the reasoning of the EU court and kick it upstairs for a legal decision?

I think that he does that by making a decision and letting it be appealed to a higher court.

On the other hand, if he doesn't make a decision that the API is not copyrightable, than I suspect that it could be pretty much the same as deciding that the API was copyrighted and leave Google in a big mess which they will appeal.

If he were to decide that APIs were copyrightable, wouldn't other interested parties be entitled to submit briefs? Have any other interested parties been submitting briefs on that issue?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google is merely keeping their options open
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 08:43 PM EDT
If the judge rules APIs are not copyrightable and moots 1B then they'll most
likely drop it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Since the SSO issue is so controversial?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:42 AM EDT
"Since the SSO issue is so controversial"

No it's not, everyone in the world other than Oracle (and some of their
employees/hired PR mouthpieces) agree it's a load of bovine dung. It's like
saying that the existance of the world tomorrow is controvercial because there's
some crazy homeless guy standing on a New York street with a sign saying that
the world will end tomorrow.

[ 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 )