|
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
Not that there is much to correct now, but that will
change... though I hope there isn't much need to correct it[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
Please provide a link to the newspick, so when it scrolls
off, we don't need to go hunting for it[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- From the number One Windows shill site. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT
- Newspicks thread - Authored by: gjleger on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- ZDNet: Google paying $0 in statutory damages as Oracle plans appeal - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- Microsoft makes its own tablet and names it "Surface" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- Microsoft's tablet moves make Nokia look cunning - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Could the "Surface" tablet, be fixed to run ANDROID? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 06:02 AM EDT
- Could the "Surface" tablet, be fixed to run ANDROID? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- UEFI - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT
- UEFI - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- UEFI - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- UEFI - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT
- UEFI - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2012 @ 07:42 AM EDT
- UEFI - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT
- Likely not. But then RH/Fedora - Authored by: jesse on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 09:42 PM EDT
- EFF launches new Patent Reform Project - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:02 PM EDT
- Epoch: Google to Pay $0 in Damages to Oracle in Android Lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Oracle Chief buys a small country - Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 04:32 AM EDT
- microsoft demurs Motorola offer - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 11:09 AM EDT
- Microsoft demurs at Motorola patent settlement offer - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- You just can not make sense of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations projects. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- Samsung Wins Patent Fight Against Apple in the Netherlands - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT
|
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
Keep anything unrelated to the Googacle here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Article about 2011 law school grad employment rate - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- The $6 Billion Military Software Project That Came to Nothing - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 10:45 PM EDT
- Off topic thread - Authored by: SeismoGuy on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 11:58 PM EDT
- Off topic thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Chromium OS gets ported to Raspberry Pi - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 04:31 AM EDT
- TSA Nude Body Scanners Made Worthless By Blog — How Anyone Can Get Anything Past The Scanners - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 06:45 AM EDT
- Oracle CEO buys a an island - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 07:39 AM EDT
- ACTA rejected by fourth committee - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 08:36 AM EDT
- We are core members of the Tor Project. Ask us anything! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- 1st example of a response to an ectoparasite giving rise to an important form of food allergy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- pcmag: Microsoft Screws Over Nokia - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- Accenture voter software released - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- Wiley on Facebook - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- ZunePad v. iPad intros - 2'14" video - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
and says "_________" - this is the second time I think he said that
under his breath (the Groklaw reporter must be pretty close to the action to
pick up on that).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
Twitter is saying that they submitted a joint stipulation for
$0 in damages to facilitate appeal, and that Google will be
asking for trial costs within the next 14 days.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
Post HTML transcriptions, but leave post mode as Plain Old
Text, so PJ can copy/paste it[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Google paying $0 in
statutory damages as Oracle plans appeal: Oracle gives up on statutory damages
as it tries t...
http://zd.net/M5Fqa1 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mirrorslap on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
I sure wish Oracle would buy a clue and just give up their silliness. They've
spent
enough money to have bought an entire clue-bat factory, from which they
could
have derived much wisdom. Or they could just read Groklaw... :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
Was Oracle right about Rule 50b motions?
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Rule 50b - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 05:41 PM EDT
- Rule 50b - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
He wrote: ...And there will be a far more
thorough, and
more
strategic, analysis of that issue at the Federal
Circuit
than in the district
court...
Question Is this always the case? I ask
because
there
are instances when that same court has 'refused' to hear an
appeal. How then does analysis become more thorough? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
Thank you very much for yet another fine piece of reporting, and for having
covered much of the trial so well. Volunteers such as yourself have done a
great deal to help make Groklaw what it is, honest, accurate, reliable and
timely. Oh, and interesting too. We can already see how badly some of the
"professional" reporters have performed! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
My Prediction.
Based on his obvious disdain for corporate cases this judge will not award costs
to either party. He will decide there was a split decision and each party should
bear their own costs.
Google won on patents, Oracle won some copyrights.
It's not like either party can't afford the costs.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 11:39 PM EDT |
I'm wondering if appeal judges are more likely to side with whomever prevailed
at trial when damages are $0. It seems to me its not worth the time and effort
when the appellant already agreed to zero damages.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT |
Isn't Oracles Motion a good thing?
Judge Alsup will have the possibility to explain (again) why
Oracles arguments are **, making it easier for the judge
deciding on the appeal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
This is probably a simple question, but why would this case be heard by the CAFC
rather than the 10th circuit appeals court?
I know that the CAFC has jurisdiction over patent appeals, but over half of
Oracle's case had nothing to do with patents.
Shouldn't the appeal be split, with the 10th circuit hearing the copyright case,
or is there some jurisdictional discretion that would allow the federal circuit
to hear the whole case?
--Joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seeks2know on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
PJ,
Quixotic carries a connotation that the objective being pursued is noble (e.g.,
to right the unrightable wrong).
I don't find any noble about Oracle's aspirations.
---
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it
steadily."
-- George Washington
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
"I guess a guy who buys a Hawaiian island can do other expensive things the
same summer, like file Quixotic appeals."
My guess the intent is to convert the island into high rise apartments similar
to South Beach (Miami Fl) and rake in millions of dollars.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pem on Friday, June 22 2012 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
An anonymous commenter on an earlier article pointed out the EchoStar v NDS
lawsuit.
This case is interesting for a few reasons:
1. It's a
Ninth-Circuit case with an appellate decision -- e.g. IIUC it's controlling law
that the Federal Circuit should apply in Oracle v. Google.
2. The appellate
decision was that, even though EchoStar "won" (like Oracle), they didn't
actually win anything of value, and Echostar was then forced to pay NDS's
attorney's fees and costs for the entire case -- $18 million. (Actually,
EchoStar "won" even more than Oracle -- they were awarded $1500 in damages,
not $0.)
3. The appellate decision was a reversal of the trial decision
on costs and attorney's fees -- apparently, the appeals court really, really
wanted the plaintiff to pay for the meritless suit.
From
Wikipedia:
In August 2010, the Ninth Circuit stated in its
decision that “EchoStar did not succeed 'on any significant issue' or 'achieve
any of the benefit it sought in bringing suit' under the Communications Act.”
The Ninth Circuit awarded NDS US$18 million and concluded that “There is no
question that NDS successfully defended against all of EchoStar’s claims based
on or related to its theory that NDS was responsible for the compromise of
EchoStar’s satellite television programming security system.”
In February
2011, the Ninth Circuit further stated, “NDS was the prevailing party in this
litigation and that EchoStar fails to meet the legal definition of a prevailing
party on any of its claims.”
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|