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
Work as a whole | 189 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Work as a whole
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
Google brought up the issue of the blank CD, and thus flawed copyright
registration, before the trial started. But it was after earlier stipulations
that they wouldn't litigate Oracle's copyright registration.

Those stipulations are common to simplify the trial. Otherwise every piece of
evidence would need to be tediously established.

Google position is that were accepting Oracle's statement that the copyrights
were valid and correctly registered. Once they found this not to be the case,
they should have been allowed to withdraw their stipulation.

The judge ruled that the stipulation should stand. This was a reasonable
ruling, since the blank CD might well have been an innocent clerical error. It
would have also been reasonable to rule the opposite, since the registration was
clearly flawed. ("Technically correct is the best kind of correct."
-- #1)

What was left incompletely stipulated, and is still at issue, is whether the
copyright registration was for a compilation or every element of the work.
Google has a strong argument that their stipulation was with the understanding
that this was a compilation copyright since Sun/Oracle clearly incorporated the
work of others, in some cases without credit.

If this is an open question still to be resolved, or the details of damages is
still open to be considered, it's reasonable to re-open the issue of the flawed
copyright registration. Oracle got lucky with the stipulation and subsequent
ruling, but they shouldn't continue to be shielded when they are re-opening
related issues.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Work as a whole
Authored by: hairbear on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT
If Google win the argument on the 'bank CD' issue, it wouldn't surprise me to
see Oracle argue that what they copyrighted was nothing, and that 9 lines of
code is very significant when compared to nothing.

hairbear

[ 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 )