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
Oracle plans to appeal - confirmed | 95 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle plans to appeal - confirmed
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT

It's an echo of their commentary on Sony v. Connectix, a case which provided Judge Alsup with much guidance. Oracle's commentary overlooked the factor of source copying which was the real point about Sony v. Connectix.

Interoperability, though, has no bearing on the point regarding replication of Packages, Classes, Methods, and Signatures, which Alsup said were methods of control and not a taxonomy.

Alsup also described Oracle's fragmentation/incompatibility argument as suggesting that Oracle's problem with Google is that it hadn't copied all 166 of the packages. The Judge also cited a case where partial replication was upheld as non-infringing.

So, no, not for investors. Oracle stock hasn't been rising and falling with their successes or failures in the Court. (Indeed, they seem to doing quite well in a couple of other current cases.) It's the last straw and BSF/MF will grasp at it.

I don't think I'd want Larry Ellison as a boss or as the fellow across from me in a bargaining table, but he's not stupid. He really should understand that this is not Ragnarok: it was an attempt to monetize Oracle's rights in java and it didn't work. No point in throwing good money after bad. The opinion is very clear that it does not seek to establish general case law, just apply current case law to specific facts. It does not say there was no way Google could infringe Oracle's copyrights in java, it says it didn't happen here.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle plans to appeal - confirmed
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:19 PM EDT
If they do that's perfect since it gives the best chance of the ruling being
affirmed at the circuit level and accruing more legal weight as precedent. My
only concern with that approach would be that I don't whether, if the circuit
court went so far as to refuse to even hear the appeal, this case would then
only be applicable as precedent for Alsup's district or whether it would then
apply at the circuit level as well.

[ 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 )