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 v. Google - Stipulation on Copyright Damages Approved ~mw
Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT

The parties have just submitted a proposed stipulation on copyright damages, and Judge Alsup has already accepted it. The ordered stipulation:

Subject to the approval of the Court, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:

1. The assessment and award of monetary relief, if any, for infringement arising as a result of the rangeCheck code and the decompiled files that were the subject of questions 3.A and 3.B of the phase one jury verdict (the “Copied Materials”) shall be deferred in accordance with this stipulation.

2. In the event that Oracle’s claim based on the SSO of the 37 accused API packages or any portion thereof (the “SSO Claim”) is ultimately submitted to a jury (the “Future Jury”) for an assessment and award of monetary relief, then:

A. Proceedings with respect to the SSO Claim will be bifurcated, i.e., liability will be tried separately from willfulness and damages;

B. Oracle shall be free to seek from the Future Jury monetary relief in the form of profits for the infringement arising as a result of the Copied Materials, but only to the extent such profits are not taken into account in computing any actual damages or profits sought for infringement of the SSO; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require Oracle to allocate its actual damages and/or profits claimed between the SSO and the Copied Materials; and

C. In the event Oracle seeks profits arising as a result of the Copied Materials in such a future damages phase, neither party may use any expert opinions or reports or other evidence that they could not have used in the event such claim for profits was tried before the current jury.

3. In the event that no portion of Oracle’s SSO Claim is submitted to a future jury for an assessment and award of monetary relief, then:

A. The parties waive their right to a jury trial on the issue of monetary relief if any, for infringement arising as a result of the Copied Materials;

B. Oracle waives any claim for actual damages or profits for such infringement; and

C. The Court will set an amount of statutory damages for such infringement in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

4. Nothing contained in this stipulation shall impair or adversely affect in any way the rights of the parties to raise in any appeal any and all issues relating to the Copied Materials; for the avoidance of doubt and without limiting in any way the generality of the foregoing, such rights of appeal shall include, among other issues: (a) issues relating to the definitions of “work as a whole” that formed part of the instructions to the current jury and/or whether use of the rangeCheck code or the decompiled files was de minimis as a matter of law and (b) issues relating to the amounts of any damages (including statutory damages) awarded in accordance with the procedures set forth above.

5. In the event the current jury returns a verdict finding infringement as to any claim of the 104 Patent or the 520 Patent, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the stipulations previously entered into between the parties.

Update: We now have a transcript [PDF] of the events of the day.

**************

Docket

05/16/2012 - 1158 - STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Copyright Damages filed by Google Inc.. (Baber, Bruce) (Filed on 5/16/2012) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

05/16/2012 - 1159 - STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING COPYRIGHT DAMAGES re 1158 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Copyright Damages filed by Google Inc. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/16/12. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2012) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

**************

  


Oracle v. Google - Stipulation on Copyright Damages Approved ~mw | 402 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT
If any are required.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Newspick - Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT
Oracle v. Google - Stipulation on Copyright Damages Approved
Authored by: cassini2006 on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT

This document is interesting. It appears that the parties are expecting:
a) Oracle will continue in its attempts to appeal the rulings and to create a new type of copyright law around the SSO issue.
b) Google might will on almost all points.

Point 5 is particularly interesting. It contemplates the possibility for a complete Oracle loss on the patent case. It is possible the third phase of the trial may never happen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tweets from the courtroom
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT
Raw tweets - https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast/oracal- vs-google-trial

Feldegast tweets - https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle: But we HAVE to win SOMETHING!!
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT
My biggest take away on this is that Oracle is desperate to get something -
anything - they can spin as a win.

If I read this correctly, they've just agreed to allow the judge to determine an
award of statutory damages. Probably the right thing to do, but completely
contradicts every public position they've taken on the matter. Unfortunately,
as was made clear yesterday, while the judge knows the law, he's also a
programmer who knows the actual value of the materials infringed. Any statutory
award he make is likely to be the absolute minimum possible -- the kind of
infinitesimal amount greater than zero ordinarily seen in first-year calculus
courses.

But it will be an award of damages to Oracle, and you can believe they will
shout...er, maybe whisper... it from the rooftops.

Otherwise, they will have spent millions on this litigation, spouted all sorts
of nonsense and trash-talked Google all over the place, and gotten nothing
whatsoever to show for it.

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes here
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
Thanks to all the volunteers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This makes no sense
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
It might take years for a "future jury" to hear the SSO claims again yet the parties need to know if this future event will occur in order to make decisions in the here-and-now such as letting the judge decide statutory damages and having Oracle waive infringer's profits.

What happens if they take path (3) in the here-and-now and then years later a future jury hears the SSO claims? I realize PJ keeps warning us to avoid trying to apply real-world logic to legal proceedings but I'd still like to know what this agreement actually means.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sad Reality
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT
I've followed Groklaw almost since the beginning. My poor wife looks over my
shoulder and sighs! I'm seriously concerned that in 2019, when this case finally
gets to the supremes, I will still be checking the site 5-10 times a day.

I'm reminded of the film "They shoot horses don't they"; is following
Groklaw a basis for voluntary euthanasia.

[ Reply to This | # ]

wonder what meullers take on this will be.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT
If Oracle win 200 bucks, you just know he will scream from the
rooftops about how he was vindicated and how Google had to be
punished.

Perhaps a few more big cases wrong like SCO and now Googacle and
perhaps tech sites will stop using him as a source.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contributed (not Oracle) code. $0 maximum statutory damages?
Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT
Google agreed not to "contest" ownership of the copyrighted code.

Oracle has -not- demonstrated any copyright ownership of rangeChec() at all.

It is part of the composite/compiled (?) work that was registered, but the
original author was in court and he -said- that he -donated- the code. There was
no work-for-hire or assignment of copyright brought in by any party with respect
to any legally required transfer of copyright in the "donation" of
that code.

That is, since its not real property "donation" does -not- confer
ownership. Particluarly since, according to what I learned in SCO v. world,
copyright only transfers on an explicit writing for that transfer.

You are, according to other things I have read here (as a non-laywer) entitled
to statutory damages for unregistered code, let alone code you don't
-exclusively- own.

By definition, and given the evidence of non-ownership, Presented By Oracle no
less, isn't the -maximum- statutory damages -owed- -Oracle- for infringing
rangeCheck() legally capped at $0?

The actual, original author of rangeCheck() might well have a statutory claim
for $200 or $150k or whatever, but Oracle has proven that they are not that
person...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle - New business Opportunity
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:30 AM EDT
Decide to but a buy a board game, say Monopoly
Check current bank account:
Overdrawn → move money from savings → don't buy game
Not enough in account → buy cheaper game
Cost of game is less than the money in my account → buy game

Infringe Sun/Oracle RangeCheck() patent → go directly to gaol (jail)
do not pass go, do not collect £200

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sounds like Alsup's also thrown out Google's copyright registration stuff
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT
Or so it's being reported.

Not sure on the reasoning.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ready for a good laugh - read Oracle's JMOL on the patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT
Oracle twists, turns and flat out lies on their Rule 50 Judgement as a Matter Of Law brief - see here:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf 3/OraGoogle-1168.pdf

One example:
Oracle’s expert, Dr. Mitchell, testified that the dx tool simulates the execution of bytecodes to determine the static initialization of arrays. ... To that end, the dx tool examines the bytecodes without executing them to determine the static initialization that they perform. ... That is the very definition of “simulating execution” recited in the patent claims.

So in Oracle's mind, any method you use to initialize an array, that doesn't execute bytecodes, is "simulating execution"????? Very convenient of them to leave out the word simulating in their arguments, and only bring it in to their conclusion.

Really, it is extremely difficult to read and follow their brief due to all the mental and literal gymnastics required for them to try and prove their point.

One last example (my favourite):
As set forth in Oracle’s objection to Jury Instruction 11 (ECF 1128), the Court’s construction of “symbolic reference” should be adjusted to accurately reflect the meaning of the terms “dynamic” and “static” as used in the ’104 patent and the Court’s May 9, 2011 Claim Construction Order. Under the proper construction, Google’s non-infringement argument based on dynamic vs. static resolution disappears.

After we have gone through the whole patent trial and sent the jury to deliberate, we want you to go back and change a fundamental part of the claim constructions so that we don't lose.

Groklaw's rules against foul language prevents me expressing how I really feel after reading that!

[ Reply to This | # ]
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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds