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
patent phase and Jury's 4A verdict | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
patent phase and Jury's 4A verdict
Authored by: mirrorslap on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
Ostensibly the patent phase is an unrelated part of the trial from the
copyright phase. The only point in common is where they meet in phase 3,
the damages phase. It is the same jurors, though, and they will have
developed opinions regarding the veracity of the lawyers presenting the
case, plus many of the witnesses are the same.

From what I saw yesterday as the judge introduced the case to the jury and
Oracle's opening arguments, patents are much more clear-cut. If Oracle
can demonstrate that the technology from their remaining 2 patents of the 8
originally in the suit are in Android, then I think that they will be
problematic
for Google. But I didn't get to see Google's opening statements this
morning, and I am sure that Mr. Van Nest has done his usual fantastic job
of representing Google's take on this.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Estoppel probably applies to both phases
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:47 PM EDT
The verdict form returned by the jury shows unambiguously in Q4A that, in the
jury's estimation, Oracle is estopped from making its claims against Google in
regard to the SSO.

http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf3/OraGoogle-1089.pdf

Crucially though, notice that the SSO is wholly immaterial to the issues which
the jury had to consider in order to answer YES to Q4A. Indeed, "SSO"
was never even mentioned at the time that Sun estopped itself from making such
future claims against Java users. The topic was always "Java" taken
as a whole, because it was Java taken as a whole that Sun wished the entire
world to embrace and to use freely. Because "SSO" is not material to
the jury's answer in Q4A, the estoppel which the jury clearly identified is very
likely to apply in the second phase as well. Estoppel is not specific to
copyrights.

Note also that estoppel cannot be bypassed through change of management on
Oracle's purchase of Sun, for the simple reason that it conveyed the freedom to
use Java to the entire world at that time, and what happened cannot be withdrawn
retrospectively. It is now a matter of history.

[ 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 )