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 prefer PJ's take on it | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
+1 Well said!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:52 AM EDT
This part of the trial was NOT about whether APIs are copyrightable. That is an issue of law, not fact, and that is why only the judge can rule on that.
While I'm not interested in what she tweets about, she is correct on this point. It is true that the judge rather than the jury will make the decision, but that doesn't change what the first phase of the trial was about.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I prefer PJ's take on it
Authored by: ansak on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:20 AM EDT
Who cares what, er, who people are wearing! It's the ideas that matter. Somebody read out ZDNet's headline just after lunch yesterday and I didn't know what their source was until I got back to my desk. Rachel King is guilty of really misunderstanding the issue if she thought Google's lawyers were all so jovial because asking for a mistrial was their last, best hope.

But ZDNet was after the screaming headline yesterday and they did get to press first with their "Dewey Wins!" message. Maybe they have some long positions in Oracle that they'd like to shed profitably? But that's not even hearsay.

cheers...ank

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think that it's important
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT
It gives us a view into how others perceive what is happening. The jury has
people on it who don't have the same prospective as the readers of this site and
the insights and comments of some of the observers could be an indication of how
the jury perceive the case. We all use our own filters and colored glasses,
sometimes it's fun to try on someone else's. :)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • funny glasses - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT
Also, not the 9th Circuit.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:45 PM EDT

Also, she (or someone on her twitter feed) seems to think that an appeal will go to the 9th Circuit rather than the Federal Circuit. Things people covering the law should know, no?

[ 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 )