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
What the jury actually decided... | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What the jury actually decided...
Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT
I understand your point about question 4 being reserved for the judge

As for Q1 I think you are on a more correct path in regard to the question being framed before it was clear to the judge what the question was really about.
I think the following correction is more appropriate:
"As to the compilable code for the 37 Java API packages in question taken as a group:

"Has Oracle proven that Google has copied the overall structure, sequence and organization of copyrighted works?"
I think the misunderstanding was a deliberate ploy by Oracle. 'Code' is covered by copyright, so convincing the judge (and jury) that what Google copied when they copied the structure, sequence and organization of the APIs was, indeed, code they attempted to strengthen their position. Time will tell (when the judge hands down his verdict on this issue) but it looks like judge Alsup has, at last, got a very good handle on the issue.

Oracle also tried to convince the judge and jury the the API design was covered by copyright because it involved hard work - I can't imagine a bricklayer suing a photographer for taking a photo of the wall he built on the basis of 'it was hard work to build the wall'

[ 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 )