|
Oracle v. Google - Oracle Specifies Claims It Will Assert |
|
Friday, September 30 2011 @ 12:30 PM EDT
|
As required by the court, Oracle has now reduced the claims it will assert at trial to 15. 471 [PDF] Or is it 26? With a bit of semantic sleight of hand Oracle maintains that the 26 claims are really only the 15 claims to which they are offering to limit themselves.
There is some logic to Oracle's approach. If you spend any time reading patents, especially patents related to software, you will often times find three very similar independent claims: a method claim (just the software); an apparatus claims (the software run on a device); and a computer-readable medium claim (the software stored on computer-readable media). Oracle refers to these as mirrored claims. Oracle's request is that, while it will limit itself to 15 claims, it wants the added benefit of having related "mirrored" claims included for purposes of Google liability.
Originally, Judge Alsup ordered Oracle to reduce its asserted claims to just three. ( Oracle Ordered to Reduce Claims Against Google From 132 to 3.) Oracle objected that this was too few. (Oracle is not Happy; Asks Judge to Reconsider Order Reducing Claims.) Oracle asked that any reduction in the number of asserted claims be determined closer to the trial. In a May 18 joint memorandum, Oracle offered to reduce the number of asserted claims to 21 while Google suggested 10-14. (Oracle v. Google - Sweating the details - Updated.) So now we have Oracle at 15 (or 26), and it will be up to Judge Alsup to determine whether this is reasonable. His big concern has been the limited time available for this trial (three weeks).
Back to the current proposal from Oracle, Oracle suggests that it could reduce the total claims to just 15 (dropping the mirrored claims) if Google will just stipulate that a finding of infringement of one of the asserted claims also constitutes an infringement of the mirrored claims.
Should the Court remain concerned with the absolute number of asserted claims, despite
their overlapping subject matter, Oracle suggests that the solution would be for Google to
stipulate that if one claim of a mirrored pair or triple were infringed, then all two or three claims
would be. For example, if Google would agree that if the jury found that a device with accused
Android code infringed an apparatus claim, then use of the device would also infringe the
mirrored method claim and storage media storing the accused code would infringe the mirrored
computer-readable medium claim (because in each case the code carries out the method). Given
the substantial overlap of the technical issues, this is not a significant concession, especially when
compared to the narrowing of trial to which Oracle has agreed.
Oracle does throw Google a bone when it offers:
The parties could reach a similar stipulation on the
invalidity arguments (perhaps excepting the patentability defense, which presents a unique issue
for just a few claims).
In other words, if one of the asserted claims is found to be invalid, the mirror claims will also be deemed invalid. Note that Oracle does not make this same offer on the infringement side, i.e., if Google is found to be non-infringing of an asserted claim they would then be found to be non-infringing of the mirror claims.
Although this approach arguably gets the number of asserted claims close to the 10-14 range suggested by Google, don't be surprised if Google objects. Also, even 15 claims still far exceeds the three claims Judge Alsup originally specified, so it will be interesting to see whether he believes 15 claims can be effectively argued in a three-week trial.
Now let's take a look at the patents and claims that Oracle proposes to assert:
Patent No. | Claim Asserted (Mirrored Claims) | Reexamination Status |
RE38104 | 11 | Awaiting Office Action |
| 27 (29) | Awaiting Office Action |
| 40 (39,41) | Awaiting Office Action |
5966702 | 13 (1,7) | Rejected (Rejected) |
| 15 (6,12) | Rejected (Rejected) |
| 16 | Rejected |
6061520 | 1 | Confirmed |
| 8 (20) | Confirmed (Confirmed) |
| 12 | Confirmed |
6125447 | None | N/A |
6192476 | 14 | Rejected |
6910205 | 1 | Rejected |
| 2 | Rejected |
7426720 | 1 (10,19) | Rejected (Rejected) |
| 6 | Rejected |
| 21 (22) | Rejected (Rejected) |
That means that of the 15 patents Oracle intends to assert, only three have been confirmed by the USPTO. Three are still awaiting a first office action (RE38104), and the remaining 9 have all been rejected in a first office action by the USPTO. When Judge Alsup agreed to delay the determination of exactly how many claims Oracle would be allowed to assert at trial, he also delayed a determination of whether to stay the trial pending the outcome of these reexaminations. It will be interesting to see whether these two factors (the fact that Oracle is asking to assert 15 claims instead of the three Judge Alsup suggested and the fact that 80% of the 15 claims remain subject to reexamination) will influence a decision on whether to go forward with the trial as scheduled or stay the trial until the reexaminations are complete.
***************
Docket
471 – Filed and Effective: 09/29/2011
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Document Text: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Oracle Case Management Statement Re Selecting Claims for Trial) filed by Oracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/29/2011) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
****************
Documents
471
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[email]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[email]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[email]
[address telephone fax]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
[address telephone fax]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[email]
[address telephone fax]
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[email]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[email]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[email]
[address telephone fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
SELECTING CLAIMS FOR TRIAL
Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
Pursuant to the Court’s September 26, 2011 Order Requesting Case Management
Statements, Plaintiff Oracle America submits this case management statement in advance of the
final pretrial conference to explain how Oracle will narrow the patent claims to a manageable
number for trial.
First, Oracle will narrow the patent claims by not trying the ’447 patent (Claims 10 and 11
are presently asserted), Claims 12, 17, 22, and 38 of the ’104 patent, Claim 3 of the ’205 patent,
Claims 4 and 14 of the ’520 patent, Claims 4 and 13 of the ’720 patent, or Claims 13 and 15 of
the ’476 patent. Given the forcefulness with which Google has advocated for claim reduction
(see, e.g., 9/15/2011 Hearing Tr. at 64-67), we continue to understand that enforcement of the
Court’s order that “any claim not asserted will be deemed foregone as to all accused matters” will
apply to Google’s invalidity contentions for these claims as well.
For the remainder of the asserted claims, Oracle proposes to reduce the number of
effective claims to just 15 claims from six patents through a claim-grouping approach. Many
groups of the asserted claims have the same technical substance, but are drafted as different types
of claims: method, apparatus, and computer-readable medium. We refer to pairs or triples of
these claims as “mirrored claims.” As the Court learns the parties’ arguments, it will see that
infringement and validity issues for each patent rest on the same accused functionalities and the
same prior art references. Accordingly, mirrored claims can efficiently be treated as a single
claim for purposes of trial. The Court may recall that the undersigned indicated this approach at
the recent copyright summary judgment hearing. (9/15/2011 Hearing Tr. at 66.)
In referring to “the same technical substance” above, we have in mind the evidence on
both infringement and validity issues. For infringement, Google’s Android software is the
linchpin of the infringement of each type of claim in a mirrored triple. Installing Android
software on a phone creates a system that infringes the apparatus claim, the use of the Android
phone infringes the method claim, and the Android phone’s storage media infringes the
computer-readable media claim. In each case, infringement arises from meeting identical
limitations across the three mirrored claims.
1
Two examples of mirrored claims illustrate this principle. Claims 39 and 40 of the ’104
patent are two claims of a mirrored triple. As is readily apparent, the apparatus of Claim 40 is a
system having a processor and a memory that contains a program for carrying out the method of
Claim 39:
’104 claim 39. A computer-implemented
method comprising: |
’104 claim 40. A data processing system,
comprising:a processor; and
a memory comprising a control program for
causing the processor to |
receiving a program formed of instructions
written in an intermediate form code
compiled from source code; |
(i) receive a program formed of instructions
written in an intermediate form code
compiled from source code, |
analyzing each instruction to determine
whether it contains a symbolic field
reference; and |
(ii) analyze each instruction to determine
whether it contains a symbolic field
reference, and |
executing the program by performing an
operation identified by each instruction, |
(iii) execute the program by performing an
operation identified by each instruction, |
wherein data from a storage location
identified by a numeric reference is
thereafter used for the operation when the
instruction contains a symbolic field
reference, the numeric reference having been
resolved from the symbolic field reference. |
wherein data from a storage location
identified by a numeric reference is
thereafter used for the operation when the
instruction contains a symbolic field
reference, the numeric reference having been
resolved from the symbolic field reference. |
Similarly, Claims 1 and 13 of the ’702 patent are two claims of a mirrored triple. Claim 1
is a method claim and Claim 13 is an apparatus claim. Although the two claims do not use the
same language in haec verba, and the ordering of elements is different, the technical overlap is clear:
’702 claim 1. A method of pre-processing
class files comprising:
determining plurality of duplicated
elements in a plurality of class files;
forming a shared table comprising said
plurality of duplicated elements;
removing said duplicated elements from
said plurality of class files to obtain a
plurality of reduced class files; and
forming a multi-class file comprising said
plurality of reduced class files and said
shared table. |
’702 claim 13. An apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to said processor;
a plurality of class files stored in said memory;
a process executing on said processor, said
process configured to form a multi-class file
comprising:
a plurality of reduced class files obtained from
said plurality of class files by removing one or
more elements that are duplicated between two
or more of said plurality of class files; and
a shared table comprising said duplicated
elements. |
2
Both claims are directed to forming a multi-class file that comprises a plurality of reduced
class files obtained by removing one or more duplicated elements and a shared table that
comprises the duplicated elements. According to Oracle’s infringement contentions and Prof.
Mitchell’s report, Android developers using the Android SDK infringe Claim 1 for the same
technical reason that they infringe Claim 13.
Confirmation of this technical identity among mirrored claims may be found in Google’s
non-infringement and invalidity expert reports. Many of Google’s noninfringement or invalidity
arguments are not made on a detailed, limitation-by-limitation basis across each claim, but are
instead made by referring back to arguments for earlier claims. For example, in Google’s ’104
noninfringement report, the three-paragraph arguments for mirrored claims 39, 40, and 41 are
identical, except for the claim numbers. Each begins: “For the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 11, it is my opinion that the dexopt and Resolve.c do not infringe claim [39,
40, or 41] of the ’104 patent.” Mirrored claims 1, 7 and 13 of the ’702 patent provide another
example. In Google’s ’702 noninfringement report, Prof. Parr wrote for Claim 7 that “it is my
opinion that the Android dx tool does not include code for performing the claimed steps of claim
7 of the ’702 patent for the same reasons discussed above in relation to claim 1” and for Claim 13
that “it is my opinion that a computer with an installed copy of the Android dx tool does not have
a process configured to perform the claimed steps of claim 13 of the ’702 patent for the same
reasons discussed above in relation to claim 1.” A third example is Google’s ’520 invalidity
report, in which Prof. Dewar stated that “the basis of my opinion [that Lewis anticipates all the
asserted claims] is detailed in Exhibit C, a detailed element-by-element invalidity chart
comparing the disclosure of Lewis with the limitations of the ’520 patent claims” and that “the
basis of my opinion [that Cierniak is anticipating] is detailed in Exhibit D, a detailed element-byelement
invalidity chart comparing the disclosure of Cierniak with the limitations of the ’520
patent claims.” Prof. Dewar’s Exhibits C and D use identical quotations from the Lewis and
Cierniak references for his invalidity arguments for Claims 8 and 20. The same similarities
appear in Google’s experts’ invalidity charts for other mirrored claims. The only additional
invalidity argument that is different is that Google has asserted a Section 101 patentability
3
defense against some (not all) of the computer-readable medium claims. But patentable subject
matter is an issue for the Court to decide, so it is not a defense that affects whether the case can be
tried to a jury.
With respect to the infringement evidence of products and acts, there is a substantial
overlap among patents that leads to the same presentation of evidence for each type of claim. The
evidence that Oracle will submit about how Android devices are made and used (and thus who is
a direct and indirect infringer) will apply to each patent’s method claims, apparatus claims, and
computer-readable medium claims in the same way. So the amount of trial time and information
that need be digested by the jury is proportional to the number of effective claims, taking
mirrored claims into account, and not proportional to the absolute total number of asserted claims.
Because of the technical overlap of the mirrored claims that leads to overlapping
infringement/noninfringement and validity/invalidity arguments, the mirrored claim approach will
streamline the presentation of evidence to the jury to the bare minimum needed while still
preserving the parties’ right to a jury trial on their claims and defenses. Oracle is constrained to
assert each claim in a mirrored pair or triple owing to the fact that each type of claim has different
consequences for direct versus indirect infringement (which matters when it comes to issues of
knowledge and intent, which Google denies)—but again, the evidence of these acts are common
across the asserted patents. But because of the overlap in both technical evidence and Google
product evidence, both within patents and among patents, the result is the same.
Applying the mirrored claim approach, Oracle proposes to try the following patent claims:
’104 patent – 3 effective claims: Claims 11, 27, and 40, and mirrored Claim 29 (a mirror
of Claim 27) and Claims 39 and 41 (mirrors of Claim 40).
’205 patent – 2 claims: Claims 1 and 2.
’702 patent – 3 effective claims: Claims 13, 15, and 16, and mirrored Claims 1 and 7
(mirrors of Claim 13) and Claims 6 and 12 (mirrors of Claim 15).
’520 patent – 3 effective claims: Claims 1, 8, and 12, and mirrored Claim 20 (a mirror of
Claim 8).
4
’720 patent – 3 effective claims: Claims 1, 6, and 21, and mirrored Claims 10 and 19
(mirrors of claim 1) and Claim 22 (a mirror of Claim 21).
’476 patent – 1 claim: Claim 14.
Oracle’s proposal reduces the number of patents to six, the asserted claims to twenty-six,
and the effective number of claims to be tried to fifteen. In the parties’ May 18, 2011 Joint
Memorandum Regarding the Court’s Tentative Case Plan, Oracle proposed to reduce the number
of asserted claims to 21 patent claims. Grouping the claims by technical subject matter improves
upon that limit by more than 25%, ensuring that the case is ready for trial.
Should the Court remain concerned with the absolute number of asserted claims, despite
their overlapping subject matter, Oracle suggests that the solution would be for Google to
stipulate that if one claim of a mirrored pair or triple were infringed, then all two or three claims
would be. For example, if Google would agree that if the jury found that a device with accused
Android code infringed an apparatus claim, then use of the device would also infringe the
mirrored method claim and storage media storing the accused code would infringe the mirrored
computer-readable medium claim (because in each case the code carries out the method). Given
the substantial overlap of the technical issues, this is not a significant concession, especially when
compared to the narrowing of trial to which Oracle has agreed. Recall that at the outset of the
case, Oracle asserted 132 claims and provided detailed claim charts for each. Since then, under
direction from the Court, Oracle has streamlined its case for trial down to fewer than 20% of
those claims—just over 10% when the overlap of the mirrored claims is considered. Oracle is
amenable to a stipulation along these lines. The parties could reach a similar stipulation on the
invalidity arguments (perhaps excepting the patentability defense, which presents a unique issue
for just a few claims).
5
Dated: September 29, 2011
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
MARC DAVID PETERS
DANIEL P. MUINO
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
6
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
:-)
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
:-D
---
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 | # ]
|
- Step right up and collect your money - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Google refuses to play by basic business rules - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- HOORAY!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Samsung to capitulate again - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- Microsoft Kindle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Oops - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Oops - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 06:06 PM EDT
- Re: Oops - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- We have safer operating systems - Authored by: jjs on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 12:20 AM EDT
- Re: Oops - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 06:21 PM EDT
- Re: Oops - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 07:42 PM EDT
- Oops - Authored by: Patrick Corrigan on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- Oops - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 09:03 AM EDT
- ODF 1.2 approved - Authored by: 400guy on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 09:59 PM EDT
- What's up with NOKIA...? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 01:04 AM EDT
- Why did the Korea Times quote Florian Mueller as a Samsung official, asks IT World's editor - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 03:16 AM EDT
- GTK+ 3.2 Wayland + Broadway - your personal web app server. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 11:36 AM EDT
- US trustee's statement to a bankruptcy court - Authored by: joef on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 12:01 PM EDT
- AMD/ATI disputes S3 Graphics ownership of patents in suit against Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- Google jujitsu against Lodsys? - Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Big Bank refutes darkside baloney - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 02:15 AM EDT
- REGARDING HTC - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 09:09 PM EDT
- Apple vs Samsung Australia "live" blog - Authored by: tqft on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 10:21 PM EDT
- GNOME 3.2 Released - See What's New - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 03 2011 @ 09:16 AM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
:-P
---
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 | # ]
|
- Free Software Foundation re-launches its Free Software Directory... - Authored by: rsi on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- Extending the day - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 02:28 PM EDT
- Extending the day - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- Federal Circuit Upholds Sanctions For Failure to Conduct Pre-Suit Investigation - Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Will Amazon Buy Palm for Its Patents? Dump webOS? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- Deaf woman - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 05:22 PM EDT
- Deaf woman - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 11:34 AM EDT
- FCC: Preserving the Open Internet; Final Rule - Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 08:52 AM EDT
- Microsoft ties to Android device makers: patently complicated - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 02:09 PM EDT
- The FUD is working - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Sources - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Sources - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- Sources - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- Sources - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 09:37 PM EDT
- Paul Allen security team members sue Vulcan, claim unethical conduct - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- Microsoft Suing Android Handset Manufacturers - Authored by: sproggit on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 10:37 AM EDT
- PJ's question about Facebook - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 01:23 PM EDT
- Wrong link to story about HTC security holes - Authored by: stegu on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- Who funds Software Freedom Law? And why this notice? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 10:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
:-S
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cpeterson on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
Oh why so brief, oh why so short,
those silly engineers!
They gave us some redundancy -
but not enough, we fears!
They could have writ it this way,
they could have writ it that;
if they'd repeated everything,
we'd have more weapons in this spat.
A description of a patent claim,
said again to be precise,
and repeated in some other prose,
thence it's duplicated. Twice.
Though just one claim it really is,
we'll present it with its clones:
and claim that they are *all* infringed
by all those Android phones![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 05:33 PM EDT |
Maybe there is something I don't understand about the whole thing, but how on
Earth can "Mirrored Claims" *ever* survive? Even if, miraculously, the
idea of "Software X", "Software X running on computer", and
"Software X stored someplace" managed to pass muster once, how can any
other other "Software Y" get past either the obviousness or lack of
novelty in any such claims?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Shattering Mirrors - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 07:36 PM EDT
- Shattering Mirrors - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 07:51 PM EDT
- Shattering Mirrors - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- No, it's not. - Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- No, it's not. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 09:09 AM EDT
- Yes, it is. - Authored by: J.F. on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 12:28 PM EDT
- Re Yes, it is. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- Yes, it is. - Authored by: Vic on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- Shattering Mirrors - Authored by: soronlin on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- Its like the text on dollar bills and checques - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 07:56 PM EDT
- Shattering Mirrors - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, October 03 2011 @ 04:24 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 30 2011 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
Judge Alsup is going to be pretty angry with Oracle. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Cypher3c on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
So does having 3 effectively identical claims mean they can claim triple the
damages for infringement?
This question is only half serious.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
I would suggest that a clause is added into the GPL
prohibiting the use of GPL code by any company paying of any
royalties associated with anything that covers alleged
patent infringement by anything in the GPL application,
unless the specific patents allegedly being infringed and
the full terms and conditions of any patent royalty or cross
licensing agreement covering the said GPL software is made
public in the same way that GPL source code that is
distributed is required to be made public. The value of such
royalty charges should be required to be made public.
This will allow the writers of the GPL application to take
measures to remove any patent infringement or to have
nullified any bogus patents in the same way that revealing
source code allows bugs to be fixed and source code to be
improved. It will also allow the anti-competitive use of
patents and patent cartels to be detected and for action to
be taken by referring such abuse of patents to the anti-
trust authorities.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 01 2011 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
If Google went from 3 to 10-14 claims in the spring, that number may
have been intended as "4-5 real issues, each with 3 variations"
So going for 15 completely different claims, plus variations would be 3 to
5 times more than accepted.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 02 2011 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
"So, you seem unable to reduce your triable claims to 5, but have instead
got it down to 26?"
"your honour .. we believe .."
"Let me solve your dilema, I have in this black velvet bag, 26 numbered
balls, each corresponding to a claim, or its variant 'mirrored' claim. Please
step forward, place your hand inside the bag and select 5 which will represent
the claims that will proceed to trial ... show me the number and call it out, I
will read out the claim from the list, and then we know whats going
forward"
"but your honour .. what happens if we draw 5 rejected claims?"
"then we have a much simpler trial, please step forward"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, October 03 2011 @ 05:40 AM EDT |
I waited for someone else to ask, since Mark raises the point so clearly. Why
has Oracle picked so many rejected claims to pursue at trial? Isn't the USPTO
action essentially dispositive for those?
Only two ideas come to mind, neither of which are plausible. One is that Oracle
has nothing much else to argue. The other is that Oracle's legal team wasn't
keeping up with the USPTO (or Groklaw).
regards, hm
---
At the moment CLIB is more suited for theorem provers, less useful for games.
This will change as soon as the game potential of theorem provers is recognized.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|