|
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 | # ]
|
|
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use Java to the entire world at that time, and what happened cannot be withdrawn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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|