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 think it might be about the marking | 484 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
yes, I have read both patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:28 PM EDT
Hmm, good point. Its possible that the full implication of Dr. August's
arguments about the Dalvik VM did not become clear to Google's legal team either
until a few days ago.

Either way, it seems evident now that the '104 patent doesn't cover a Java VM
unless perhaps you construct its claims in a rather unusual way. Oracle still
has plenty of other patents though (which they can use against other companies
besides Google), even if this particular one turned out to be a dud.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think it might be about the marking
Authored by: pem on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT
If Java devices practice the patent and weren't marked, poof! go the
infringement damages.

Of course, that was several stipulations ago, so things might have changed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

yes, I have read both patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:48 PM EDT
"Why stipulate that the JVM did?" The flip side is, "why bother
arguing about it?"
It doesn't affect the case either way - Google was accused of infringing against

the patent, never mind what anyone else does, right?

[ 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 )