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
The FOSSpatents stuff should be in red. Like this... | 118 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The FOSSpatents stuff should be in red. Like this...
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 07:31 AM EDT
So Oracle's feigned shock that Google relies on what all
these other courts have already ruled when making the same
winning arguments in those cases is a little bit much. Maybe
when you are running out of winning arguments, you stay
silent or yell about something else entirely. And to claim
that Google failed to respond to Oracle's Atari argument is
simply not true.

The FOSSpatents article suffers from the same lack of care
as Oracle's brief, if that is what it is. If it's cynical
propaganda, that, of course, is even worse. But whatever it
is, it's not the whole picture, and it's not a fair picture.

So, let's go through the FOSSpatents article with more care
than it gave Google, and I'll add in the facts you need to
complete the picture more accurately. The article, "Oracle
to appeals court: Google concedes away the entire case under
established copyright principles", is here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/ oracle-to-appeals-court-
google-concedes.html

But I'll show you the FOSSpatents article, with my comments
and corrections interspersed in purple-colored text so it's
clear who is speaking, with any quotations from briefs in my
sections in blue colored text. I hope you find it helpful,
because there is a lot to add to give you a fuller
understanding of the Oracle brief and to correct some of the
statements in it about Google:
^
|
|
(the above stuff is white (pj talking in original post)
*****************
<red>
Oracle to appeals court: Google concedes away the entire
case under established copyright principles

On Wednesday Oracle filed its reply brief in the
Android/Java copyright appeal, and it became publicly
accessible this morning. Oracle's opening brief
[http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/02/ oracles-appeal-brief-
likens-google-to.html],
</red>

<purple>
PJ: Here it where you can find it on Groklaw.
filed in February, likened Google to a fictitious Harry
Potter knockoff author by the name of "Ann Droid"
</purple>

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ 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 )