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
That's different | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That's different
Authored by: jbb on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
What the OP quoted implies that ties on question 1.B favor Google. That is misleading because Google has the burden of proof on 1.B. It also extremely misleading because it implies the lack of a jury decision on 1.B favors Google.

If the judge is going to decide the fair-use issue then, of course, he would have to decide in Oracle's favor in order for Oracle to prevail. Likewise, he would have to decide in Google's favor in order for Google to prevail.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle spokesman thanking jury "on behalf of" java developers and community
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT
I found this comment particularly disgusting. Oracle HAS NO RIGHT to speak for
the Java community. They have in fact attacked the Java community. Their claim
to own the API directly attacks the livelihood of Java developers. If they
succeed in this ridiculous claim Java as a language will be essentially
destroyed and the entire software industry will be thrown into legal chaos. So
no - Oracle doesn't speak "on behalf of" the Java community. Virtually
the entire Java community has been screaming at Oracle continuously to stop this
madness and has been ignored.

[ 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 )