Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
I have to agree. Oracle had the burden of proof for a preponderance of evidence
threshold. Even then all they could
do was little better than embarrass themselves in public and
generally create confusion for anyone trying to make a
consistent interpretation of their evidence.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
Oracle / BSF realized that their only chance was to cast Google as bad actors,
using emotion to convince the jury of infringement both copyright and patent,
rather than explain exactly why the copying was significant and infringing.
They did not want the jury to "understand", but to emote.
--SPQR[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
It is Oracle's duty to explain the patent in simple, easy
to understand
language. If they fail to do so...
... then maybe there's something wrong
with the patent. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
Unfortunately it is standard practice to recast the invention behind a patent
into complicated legalese (often intended to head off work-arounds to the actual
invention).
I've had one idea patented - after writing up a nice description of how the
gadget would work, it was handed over to the patent lawyers and when the patent
application came back for me to check it made my head hurt to work out what the
patent was actually describing. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:06 AM EDT |
Mathematically thinking about the problems makes the subject simple.
Unfortunately, such a rigorous approach is not in the experience of 90% of the
population.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|