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
From the Courtroom: Day 13 of Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj Updated 3Xs
Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT

UPDATE: The jury verdict is in. They found no infringement of the patents!

Google has a statement already:

Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem.
Our reporter provides this:
Clerk:

Question 1: has Oracle proved by preponderance of evidence that Google infringed?

Claim 11: not proven
27: no
29: no
39: no
40: no
41: no

Question 2: not proven

1: no
20: no

Question 3: no answer, no response, not applicable.

Unanimous. The jury is dismissed. There will be no damages phase for them to endure. And there was only one juror holding out for Oracle. We also learn that in the copyright phase, it was 9 to 3 for Google on fair use. See Dan Levine's tweets in Update 2. In short, Oracle has lost big time so far.

Jump To Comments

[Update 1, Update 2, Update 3, Update 4]

From our reporter in the courtroom:
Judge:

Jury discharged.. because phase 1 and 2 done, and phase 3 not happening due to agreements between lawyers.

Jury can talk or not talk to anyone, but please be accurate because inaccuracy can lead to evidentiary hearing and impeachment of verdict.

In his heart, you are respected, he said, and your verdict is respected.

I haven't had a jury in a civil case that has gone this long, "longest civil trial" and you all have been a superb jury, and this country is a great country, because of citizens like you who are willing to sacrifice and come in as you have. Thanks them on behalf of country and Federal court.

He will then thank them individually in jury room.

Amen to that. This is the longest trial Groklaw's ever covered, too, and I'm so exhausted, when I heard the judge was taking a 5-day weekend, I felt like champagne.

And now to the media: Here's a homework assignment for you, if you are willing. I want you to think about those $6 billion damages headlines. Where did the "information" come from? Was it an accurate tip? Remember all those articles about Google and how they were hopelessly in a mess because they had no patents to use in a counterclaim against Oracle? Where did that come from? Was it an accurate analysis? Was it expert? Think: If someone is being paid by a party to litigation, what is he likely to say? There is a difference between information and propaganda.

Here at Groklaw, we told you that there would never be a $6 billion damages award, and I told you that Google has a phenomenal record in beating back patent infringement claims. And I wrote that the patents looked goofball to me. Just like with SCO against the World, Groklaw called it right.

Think of the smearing that Google has had to endure. I hope you fix that now, if you participated in it unwittingly. What does this verdict mean? It means that Google did nothing wrong with Oracle's patents ever at any time. It was Oracle who was in the wrong. There was no patent infringement. Period.

And may I just list the incredible legal team that accomplished this result? It's been a plum pleasin' pleasure to watch them at work:

From Keker & Van Nest:
The incredible Robert A. Van Nest
Christa M. Anderson

From King & Spalding:
Scott T. Weingaertner
Robert F. Perry
and the amazing Bruce W. Baber [I know a geek when I see one]
Donald F. Zimmer, Jr.
Cheryl A. Sabnis

From Greenber Traurig:
Ian C. Ballon
Heather Meeker

Yes, there is more to come. The API question remains pending, and whatever damages there may be after the judge reaches that decision, if any. If you recall, there's a stipulated agreement between the parties and signed by the judge on copyright damages and the various ways it might be computed, depending on the API SSO claim, which may yet go to a second jury. But this was the big issue in the here and now, because what Oracle was threatening was an injunction, and without patent infringement, that part of the threat is forever off the table. Can you imagine if these two sad sack patents had been used to block Android in the US? And then, if Oracle is foolish, it will spend more money on appeals, and Groklaw will follow that too, if necessary. I hope they don't, but they don't listen to me, so they probably will.

Patents and software need to get a divorce before somebody gets hurt. Imagine if Oracle had gone after someone less willing to stand up to patent bullying. The damage from software patents is astounding, and the IP is so puny. There is an imbalance in the legal universe, and it needs fixing. Software is algorithms, and that is mathematics, and it's wrong, totally wrong, to let math be patented. These patents should never have issued.

And may I say thank you to our wonderful volunteers, who stuck with this trial to the end, and made it possible for us to really know all the details of the proceedings. We will, of course, obtain the court transcripts in 90 days, when they become available. But imagine if we'd had to wait 3 months before even knowing what was really doing on! So thank you, guys. You are awesome.

I guess it's time to make some music on Google's doodle for today. A victory march might be just the thing.

And Groklaw's feldegast was thinking about what Oracle tried to do to Android, and he came up with this graphic:

So far, it's more of a boomerang than a club.

Update 2: Wait -- Dan Levine has found a juror, and it's amazing news:

We all just interviewed juror, who said jury was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use. Um, wow.
And on patents, there was only one for Oracle, the foreman:
The foreman was only holdout for oracle on patents. So even if oracle wins on appeal, its trial strategy needs revamping
That might explain all the notes to the judge, trying to get the others to alter their views. But the answers apparently finally made it unanimous. There was no bad blood, the foreman tells Levine. It was always civil during deliberations. And here's why the fair use argument made sense to the jury:
Foreman Thompson: lot of jurors were focused on evidence that Android use of Java was creative transformation, which is fair use protected
Another tweet, this one from Lucio Maciel (@luciofm):
I think mr @FOSSpatents was very, very wrong then... Jury was pro google, and not pro oracle on this question...
Yup. Extrapolate.

In fact, Joe Mullin at ars technica did a lengthy interview with the jury foreman, and it turns out it was he sending most of the notes:

The feeling was that the computer code being dealt with was basically a functional tool, and when a copyrighted work is functional rather than creative, that weighs in favor of fair use (and thus, Google.)

"A lot of the jurors were focused on functionality versus creativity," said Thompson, with a majority "putting greater weight on functionality."...

The patent phase was largely the same, with a majority of the jurors leaning toward Google from the beginning of the deliberations, with a few undecided. That quickly shifted to a situation where Thompson was the lone pro-Oracle holdout, he said. Of the array of technical questions sent to the judge during deliberations, many were his own, Thompson said. Finally, realizing he wasn't swaying anyone else to his side, he determined that Oracle hadn't met its burden of proof and Google should be off the hook. "The nail that's poking up eventually gets beaten down," Thompson said, smiling.

The judge's curt answers to his questions were "of limited helpfulness," Thompson said. "The answers... could be interpreted in different ways."

There was a lot of technical jargon, but the jury's consensus was ultimately that Android used "numerical identifications" that put its operations outside the "symbolic references" pointed to in Oracle's key patent.

Update 3: The media reports are starting to come in:

  • Caleb Garling, Wired, "Jury Says Google’s Android Does Not Infringe Java Patents":
    A federal jury has found that Google did not infringe on Oracle patents in building its Android mobile operating system. As part of its lawsuit against Google, Oracle had argued that in creating the Dalvik virtual machine — the software platform that runs Java applications on Android — the search giant knowingly lifted intellectual property involving two Java-related patents that Oracle acquired with its purchase of Sun Microsystems. But on Wednesday morning, the jury dismissed Oracle’s claims. ...

    Oracle indicated it will continue to push its case. “Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java,” read a statement from the company. “We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.”

  • CNNMoney:
    In one of Silicon Valley's landmark court battles, Google appears to have won a big victory over Oracle.

    A jury on Wednesday cleared Google of violating any of Oracle's patents with its Android mobile software.

  • Josh Lowensohn, CNET has more details on the jury question:
    In particular, the jury wanted to know the legal interpretation of the words "simulating execution of the code," made within U.S. Patent No. 6,061,520, one of seven Oracle patents named in the original suit that covers "method and system for performing static initialization."

    Alsup asked Oracle's counsel to answer that question, which led to Oracle's counsel asking for a five-minute huddle with Google's legal team to hammer out an answer.

    When the judge returned, the two sides suggested that the jury might have been referring to one of two claims made within different sections of the patent. Alsup concurred, and brought the jury back into the courtroom to lay out how the question could reference either claim 1 or claim 20 from the patent, and how it needed to be more specific when asking such questions, adding that he wasn't "100 percent sure" he had answered their original query.

    Nonetheless, Alsup said the jury was "right on target" for asking the meaning of the phrase because it was a legal question. He then sent the jury back to deliberations and said they were welcome to submit additional queries. A verdict arrived approximately half an hour later.

  • Thomas Claburn, InformationWeek:
    With the copyright and patent phrases of the trial complete, Judge William Alsup must decide whether APIs qualify for copyright protection. There's reason to believe they do not: Earlier this month, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the format of its data files are expressive enough to merit copyright protection.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that APIs should not be copyrightable. "Improvidently granting copyright protection to functional APIs would allow companies to dangerously hold up important interoperability functionality that developers and users rely on everyday," said EFF attorney Julie Samuels in an online post earlier this month.

  • Hayley Tsukayama, Washington Post, "Google cleared of Oracle patent infringement":
    A California jury has ruled that Google is cleared of infringement on any patents owned by Oracle in the company’s trial to determine whether or not the search giant improperly used Java APIs while developing Android.
  • Fox Business News, "Jury: Google Didn't Violate Oracle's Patents":
    Competition between tech companies for customers in the highly profitable smart phone sector has led to a spate of lawsuits alleging that competitors are stealing one another’s technology and intellectual property.

    Google’s Android smart phone has been phenomenally successful and Google has suggested the Oracle lawsuit is meant to cut into Android’s marketshare.

  • Dan Levine, Reuters, "Google did not infringe Oracle patents - jury":
    While Oracle is seeking about $1 billion in copyright damages, the patent damages in play are much lower. Before trial, Google offered to pay Oracle roughly $2.8 million in damages on the two patents remaining in the case, covering the period through 2011, according to a filing made jointly by the companies.

    For future damages, Google proposed paying Oracle 0.5 percent of Android revenue on one patent until it expires this December and 0.015 percent on a second patent until it expires in April 2018. Oracle rejected the settlement offer.

  • Quentin Hardy, N.Y. Times, "Google Cleared of Java Patent Violation":
    The verdict, reached in Federal District Court in San Francisco, leaves Oracle with a relatively small claim of copyright infringement, making it almost certain that the judge will not demand a harsh penalty from Google.

    That would be a mild end to what at one time seemed to be a major case between two of the largest companies in tech. Oracle, which picked up the Java software language when it bought Sun Microsystems, accused Google of violating both patent and copyright protections in developing Android, which is now the world’s most popular smartphone operating system. If Google had lost on several counts of the case, it could have been subject to severe fines or been forced to let Oracle in on future developments of Android.

    “It’s a full win for us,” said Jim Prosser, a Google spokesman. “If you look at what has happened in this case so far, they didn’t have much.”

  • James Niccolai, ComputerWorld:
    Google's Android operating system does not infringe Oracle's Java patents, a jury in San Francisco found Wednesday in a setback for Oracle.

    The jury delivered its verdict after more than a week of deliberations. It found no infringement of any of the claims in two Java-related patents Oracle had asserted, court documents show....The reissued patent ['104] was awarded to James Gosling, the Sun engineer often called the father of Java.

  • Jeff John Roberts, GigaO, "Verdict in: Strike 2 for Oracle in “World Series of IP” trial with Google":
    The jury in the epic intellectual property trial between Oracle and Google is going home after ruling today that the latter didn’t infringe on two patents related to the Java programming language.

    The finding is a major blow to Oracle. The same jury was earlier unable to decide whether Google’s use of Java Application Interfaces was fair use under copyright law.

  • Karen Gullo, BloombergBusinessWeek:
    The 10-person jury ruled unanimously today that neither of the two patents at issue was infringed. Immediately after the verdict was announced, the judge dismissed the jury from the case and canceled the third phase of the trial over damages...

    U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who presided over the trial, said he may issue a ruling next on whether Oracle’s Java application programming interfaces, software tools at the heart of the case, can be copyrighted. A ruling that they aren’t would be another blow to Oracle.

  • Patrick May, San Jose Mercury News:
    The verdict is a win for Google, and marks the end of the trial's second phase, which focused on the claims of patent infringement. Closing arguments in the case were made last week.
  • Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, ZDNet, "Google kicks Oracle in its patent teeth":
    So what will all this mean? First, it’s not the end. Oracle will appeal. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison doesn’t know the meaning of the word “Quit.” I don’t see any chance though that any higher courts will give Oracle’s arguments any credence.

    As Linus Torvalds, Linux’s creator, observed on Google+, “Prediction: instead of Oracle coming out and admitting they were morons about their idiotic suit against Android, they’ll come out posturing and talk about how they’ll be vindicated, and pay lawyers to take it to the next level of idiocy.” Alas, he’s right.

  • Joe Mullin, ars technica, "Oracle v. Google jury foreman reveals: Oracle wasn't even close":
    Thompson's brief chat with reporters revealed that the jury had a strong pro-Google bent during both the patent phase, which Google won, and the copyright phase, which ended with a split verdict.

    Oracle—after spending millions litigating this case and dragging in some of the world's most famous tech CEOs to testify in a federal courtroom—had never even come close to winning....

    After the copyright verdict, there had been some speculation around the Web that because the jury found that Google infringed copyright—but split on fair use—it was basically a pro-Oracle jury with one or two holdouts sticking up for Google. Talking to Thompson, it quickly became clear that wasn't the case at all. A majority of jurors favored Google's argument from the start, and the holdouts—primarily Thompson himself—were a beleaguered few favoring Oracle. At one point during the copyright phase, in fact, Thompson said he was the lone holdout. At the end, he swung a couple more jurors to his side, but they were still a distinct minority.

    As to the finding of infringement, Thompson said that the jury actually didn't debate it that long. The feeling was that the answer to the infringement question—the first one on the copyright verdict form—had basically been dictated by the judge's instructions. (Judge Alsup told the jury, among other things, that they must assume that the Java APIs are copyrighted.) "We felt that the judge's instructions put us a lot of the way towards finding infringement," Thompson explained.

  • Jon Brodkin, ars technica:
    It's not over. There will be appeals, and a question about whether Java APIs can be copyrighted is still awaiting a ruling from the judge presiding over the case. But for now, it looks like Oracle may have spent millions of dollars to get nothing in return.

    "I would assume this is a several million dollar trial," Penn Law Professor R. Polk Wagner told Ars today. "Six weeks is a long trial, plus the case was fairly complex. I would not be surprised if [Oracle's costs were] more than $10 million once you include the enormous amount of prep work."

  • MarketWatch:
    "I think you've seen a lot of patent cases filed lately, and most of them have not resulted in successful outcomes for plaintiffs," said Google General Counsel Kent Walker. "That may send a message to those who might want to do these things in the future."

I told you I thought that was what happened with the jury, that they thought the judge's instruction forced them to find infringement. It didn't, but I felt fairly sure they would view the wording that way, after he edited his first draft.

'Didn't have much' is an understatement. Oracle has 9 lines of code written by the author of the code, who may have copied it or just redid it the same, but code the judge himself said he could have written it's so basic. And Oracle has some test files that a contractor, contrary to Google's express instructions, somehow put in, but they were never shipped and Google removed them when they were notified that they were in there. That's all Oracle has so far.

And the Google offer of payment on the two patents was a *conditional* offer -- it only would have come into effect IF Oracle could prove infringement at trial, not to avoid one, and anyway, Oracle turned down the offer.

As for James Gosling, where was he in all this? Seriously. Where? [Update: Here. Sore loser.]

The fact that I'm showing these snippets doesn't mean I agree with all that is in each article. For example, there'll be no phase three on Tuesday, as some are reporting. The stipulated agreement tells you when, if ever, that will happen. But the snippets do give us a feel for how the world at large is viewing this victory for Google. And if you are wondering why your article didn't show up, keep in mind that Groklaw doesn't link to articles that quote or mention FOSSpatents, unless the article reveals to its readers that Florian Mueller is on Microsoft and/or Oracle's payroll. You owe your readers that much. There are also so many articles now out there, if there's duplicate information, I'm not going to list the later duplicate.

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

[Coverage before the verdict:]

Another day, another jury question. Happily, this one is on patent '520, not '140, so probably that means the jury is making progress. Ginny LaRoe tweets:

Jury question is on 520 patent. But it's too long to tweet. And Oracle's Jacobs says, "We don't understand the question."
And so it begins in the Oracle v. Google trial's jury deliberations. Robert Van Nest is in the house for Google. The lawyers confer, and then tell the judge that neither side understands the question. Another hilarious day begins to unfold in San Francisco. And I'm glad to tell you that we have a reporter there for Groklaw today.

Her first report:

Jury is in to get an answer to the question.

Discussion with lawyers was very confusing.. they didn't know how to answer... but judge is going to give it a try:

Question: understanding the 520 issue is about patent protection for the array "simulated execution of the code" as found in the claim language. Does that wording refer to looking at the actual static initial array for the purpose of...
Judge:
Simulating execution of the code is for the purpose of identifying the static initialization.

You simulate to identity the static initialization.

#1 is about:
A method for statically initializing an array for the 5 steps.. you don't get to the static initialization until you do the 5 steps.

Then the judge said that he felt the jury didn't really get what he was saying, but they (the judge, the lawyers) weren't sure about the question, so the jury was free to ask a follow on question and they should continue on deliberating.
So the jury is confused, and so the question made no real sense, so the real answer is: try again to ask a question that can be answered. But, as CalebGarling points out, at least the parties finally agree on something.

Update 4: We now have the transcript [PDF] of the day's proceedings.


  


From the Courtroom: Day 13 of Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj Updated 3Xs | 543 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Tweets from the court
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast/oracle-vs-google-trial

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury Deliberations ~pj
Authored by: wharris on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT
In my opinion, the whole case would be far better handled if the court had a
neutral technical person who could explain to both the court and the jury what
an API is, the difference between interpreted, compiled, and byte-coded
languages, what the patent actually covers, etc.

It's pretty ridiculous that the Judge's ability to program helps him see how
trivial the RangeCheck code is, but any juror who tried similar reasoning would
be thrown off the jury immediately.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"But it's too long to tweet"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT
Dude I miss our court reporters SO MUCH :(

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
This would be a fine place to post corrections.
It may be helpful to summarize in the title.

e.g. Sue everyone -> Live in peace

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Simple Question
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT
If, after all this time the jury is still so confused as to even what the claims
are, how is "someone skilled in the art" supposed to use the '520
patent as a "teaching"?

I know. It's really more of a rhetorical question.

--nyarlathotep

[ Reply to This | # ]

It seems fundamentally wrong headded . . .
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
. . . to even allow juries to determine patent infringement.

Maybe it made sense when things patented were no more complex than a cotton gin,
or revolver, or telephone.

People who developed Java, and people who developed Android studied and
practiced for years. Computer science is now so large a field that you have to
specialize in what you work on. You specialize in particular languages, often
in particular technologies, even frameworks. Just because you can't know it all
both broadly and deeply anymore. And there is a big difference between, let's
say, your average web developer, and suppose, a compiler jockey who works on
abstract syntax trees, internal code representations, code generation with
optimal instruction selection, etc.

Can a jury really be expected to understand the minutia of how virtual machines
are implemented? What an API is?

It's one more symptom of how the system is fundamentally broken.


---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why does the jury struggle so much?
Authored by: argee on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
Here is what I would decide if I was a juror.

It is Oracle's duty to explain the patent in simple, easy
to understand language. If they fail to do so, and the
patent or the explanation remains fuzzy, then they cannot
honestly expect anyone else to understand either, so the
patent is just invalid babble.

Get a few juries decide like that, and within three months
the entire patent landscape will change: Patents and the
claims will become models of concise clarity.

This stuff about Oracle trying to obfuscate things is
sheer nonsense. They should be ones clearly explaining.
And it should have been in the patent to begin with.


---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury Deliberations ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT
Apparently a verdict has been reached...

[ Reply to This | # ]

BREAKING: Complete Google win on patent infringement claims by Oracle. NO INFRINGEMENT.
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:58 PM EDT
BREAKING: Complete Google win on patent infringement claims by Oracle. NO
INFRINGEMENT.

---
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 | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury Deliberations ~pj
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT
Total Google liability for whole trial - 9 lines of Java code
Oracle valued at $0. Methinks there is going to be an
appeal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google must be happy now.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
Judge Alsup's faith in the jury's ability to reach a good verdict turned out to
be well-founded.

They were tossed into an ocean of complex technical stuff and told to swim.

Somehow they made it to the other side!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Damages?j
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT
Will there even be a jury trial on damages?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Celebrate Here!!!
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT
.

"The best Google could get is a hung jury." It is a pleasure to be
wrong.

Contratulations to Van Nest and the Google team. Van Nest is clearly a
sympathetic and compelling figure in Court.

One can ascribe many aspects of the great interest and appreciation of this
episode to PJ and her site.

Look at the focus on the futility of biased experts, knowedgable or not judges,
the unworthy bias and presumptions in favor of the patent system, top down.

Thanks for a place that pressure the media to get it right, offers the
interested insights from many experts and workers in the field.

Look also at what PJ shows us about digging up evidence and holding parties
accountable for their past actions and statements.

Other judges with similar cases will realize what must be expected of them.
Many will call Alsup; he will be assigned similar cases.

Oracle faces a laughable future spending more on this case.

Thanks for the technical discussions. Some of them helped.

Good for Google!!!

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj
Authored by: hairbear on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:23 PM EDT
Jury dismissed !!

It will be VERY interesting to hear what the Jurors say. I presume that they are
free to talk about the case now that it's over ?

hairbear

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT
Have Oracle launched their appeal yet. Or can they only do that after the Judge
sanctions them for bringing such a stupid case in the first place.

PS Who'd want to use a database from a company that confuses $6b with $0.

Perhaps someone should double check their accounts for a smiler error :-)

---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle vs Google verdict: Android does not infringe on Oracle’s patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
They still got it wrong.

The jury will now move to the damages phase of the trial, and that too may take quite a while...

Are we in the same world??

[ Reply to This | # ]

IMO Larry Ellison should resign as CEO of Oracle after this total Loss and disaster
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:31 PM EDT
Larry Ellison should resign as CEO of Oracle after this total
loss and disaster.

He has to take the reponsibility and follow thru on the
consequences.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not appeal
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT
Of course there will be an appeal. But first there are
motions. What I want to know is what about a counter suit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

So Groklaw got the story right?
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT
And major recognized press got it wrong?

Color me NOT surprised.

Maybe they'll think twice about using Florian Microsoft as a source.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT
Wow.

Boies Schiller's record continues unmarred. The reputation unchanged.

They got taken to the cleaners by Google's counsel. And congrats to Judge Alsup
for getting an end to this fiasco in a more reasonable length of time (oh, I'm
not ignoring the likelihood that Oracle will appeal - although I'd advise them
to get more competent appellate counsel after the performance I saw in the 10th
circuit).

SPQR

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyone know where I could score some free range crow? I've got a friend who's just been asked...
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
Jonathan Schwartz ‏@OpenJonathan

Anyone know where I could score some free range crow? I've got a friend who's
just been asked to cater a meal.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57440235-93/jury-verdict-android-doesnt-infring
e-oracles-patents/

---
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 | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:41 PM EDT
Florian is on full damage control.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Congrats to Groklaw!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:42 PM EDT
As always, FANTASTIC job by the Groklaw team! Thanks for the
accurate, detailed and technical reports you guys have filed!
Your legacy of calling it correctly in big cases is again
complete - from SCO/IBM and now Oracle/Google. :) Great job
again guys!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you to the jury.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
They have endured a lot throughout all of this. It must have been very
difficult to work through all of this, and make some sense out of it.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Thank You very much!

Dave M.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A big THANK YOU to Judge Alsup
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:47 PM EDT
Thank you!

While your job is probably thankless at times and even insulting at times, let
me say a big Thank You.

Thank you for taking the time and asking the questions in order to really
understand the substance of the issues.



---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT
Dan Levine ‏@FedcourtJunkie

We all just interviewed juror, who said jury was split 9-3 for google on
copyright fair use. Um, wow.

---
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 | # ]

The foreman was only holdout for oracle on patents
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
Dan Levine ‏@FedcourtJunkie

The foreman was only holdout for oracle on patents. So even if oracle wins on
appeal, its trial strategy needs revamping

---
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 | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT

The timing could not have been better. I just a couple of hours ago took delivery of my new Android-based tablet (which, incidentally, rocks). Thank you, attorneys and jury, for not condemning me to settle for something else.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury says Google doesn’t infringe on Oracle patents
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:06 PM EDT

SlashGear article. (Nobody created a "News Picks" or "Off topic" thread today. Too late now, I recon.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, Thank you PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT
Hey hey, My my
Thank you PJ for covering one more lawsuit.
if i had to take this from another source,
it would have been bad for my heart.

/Arthur

[ Reply to This | # ]

tech savy jurors not prone to limit openness
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT
Dan Levine ‏@FedcourtJunkie

Juror said it was his opinion that more tech savvy jurors were less likely to go
for limits on openness. Ie they were pro google

-------
Cool. The value of openness is getting wider recognition. It this attitude
spreads it will become harder for IP maximalists to lock up technology.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Congratulations to the jurors
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT

The geeky groklaw posters managed to grok the tech and realize, sometimes for the right reasons, that Android was not practicing what the patents claimed. As a Java programmer who occasionally reads the bytecodes (using javap), I could understand a lot of what was going on, and recognize, with some pain, a lot of misconceptions (including among the groklaw commenters), but I am a little surprised that the distinctly non-techie jurors could dodge the misconceptions and arrive at the right answer. My hat's off to them for wading into a swamp most people never enter, and wrestling the alligators into submission.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle did it all for altruistic reasons
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT

Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.

Link: http://allthingsd.com/20120523/jury-absolves- google-in-patent-phase-of-java-tri al-vs-oracle/

We got it wrong. We thought Oracle acted out of greed, but clearly it was their concern for the 9 million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility. (...and how many of those develop Android, who depend on Java compatibility with Android?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:17 PM EDT
Damn, it's too late here in Spain to go buy some alcohol and
get smashed!

Justice was served! (not just law). Now to wait for the API
issue and the damages!

BTW, thanks to all the reporters that allowed us to follow
the case. Thanks to Mark and PJ for explaining the law.
Thanks to all those techies that donated their time wading
through the smoke and mirrors.

Once the judge rules on the remaining points, how long until
we know if there will be an appeal?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now, support Libre Office
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT
Next thing on the agenda, support Libre Office, and kill off Open Office. Not
that there's anything wrong with how Open Office works, but if Oracle doesn't
want to play on the Open Source Field, and play by the rules, then they
shouldn't play at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you for my ability to continue my career as a Java developer
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
Thank you jury. Thank you judge. Thank you Google. Thank Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj
Authored by: rebentisch on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT
And who pays for our wasted time? What to get out of it except the confidence that the US legal system may not be as broken as regular Groklaw readers expect? Florian puts it like this:
Jury doesn't find Google to infringe two Oracle patents -- but the litigation is far from over.
and quotes Oracle:
Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.
It is interesting that in Germany it would be very easy to win an injunction against a statement from a competitor like "presented overwhelming evidence... that Google knew it would ..." in Court. Because it is a kind of libel. And you don't expect a party when its case is cratered to issue arrogant upbeat messages. The whole case creates a rather negative impression about the maturity of the governance culture and business environment in that jurisdiction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO had "mountains of code" Oracle had 7 lines.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT
SCO had evaporating "mountains of code", Oracle had 7 lines.

I guess that defines "approaching the ridiculous"...

When will someone REPROACH the ridiculous???

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: ian.waring on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT
Great job, everyone. Thank you.

What happened to the judges decision on copyrightability of APIs? Is he still yet to make that call before handing Oracle any (small) monetary amounts??

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Google recover COURT COSTS now Oracle v. Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT
Also penalties for BSF, and the Oracle experts lying to the court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Counterclaims
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT
Remember all those articles about Google and how they were hopelessly in a mess because they had no patents to use in a counterclaim against Oracle? Where did that come from? Was it an accurate analysis? Was it expert?
With a good counterclaim patent portfolio, they would not have been forced to pay millions in attorney fees because the trial would not have happened.

In other jurisdictions, generally loser pays all (including the costs of the defense lawyers), so you don't have to pay through the nose when getting bashed with a meritless lawsuit.

So yes: in this jurisdiction, a defense portfolio makes sense, and consequently small inventors and companies are at an inherent disadvantage in the patent gambling business, one that can easily render them broke even if they win every case thrust upon them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Summing it up
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:01 PM EDT
1) Oracle wins about $150,000 statutory damages on decompiled/copied code.
2) Patents - Zip.
3) API structure and organization -Still open.
3.a) Infringement undecided.
3.a.1) Oracle can drop claims.
3.a.2) New trial on this issue.
3.a.3) Both sides can agree to let judge decide (or he can just decide and let
them appeal)
3.b) Judge still needs to decide if API can even be copyrighted. He would rather
get the infringement issued settled so he can (wisely) avoid making a bigger
decision than is necessary, but it seems he is now stuck with the big question.

Comments and corrections/
Thanks.
Dennis H.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
How embarrassing for Oracle.

They should issue a public apology to google and the entire Java community for
their now clear and blatant belligerence in their handling of the legal and
public
matters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Incredible Legal Team
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT
    I don't doubt these are superb lawyers.

    The fact it takes an incredible legal team and millions of dollars to survive
    these bogus claims is a sad indictment of our laws and our courts.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    IF Oracle could prove infringement at trial, not to avoid one.. BBC guilty of same error
    Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT
    Jury retires to decide on Google Oracle patent dispute

    BBC guilty of same error:

    Quote:"Prior to the case being brought to trial, Google offered to pay $2.8m (£1.75m) in damages on the two patents remaining in the case, covering the period during 2011 in which they were used. For future use, Google offered to pay 0.5% of Android's revenue on one of the patents until its expiry in December this year. Google also proposed giving Oracle 0.015% of revenues for use of a second patent which is valid until April 2018. Oracle rejected both offers, court filings said."

    I have complained but to no avail.

    ---
    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 | # ]

    Jury foreman Greg Thompson said that at times he was the only holdout for Oracle on fair use
    Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT
    Jury foreman Greg Thompson, 52, said that at times he was the only holdout for Oracle on that fair use copyright question.

    ---
    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 | # ]

    Off topic here
    Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT
    Please make any links clickable.

    ---

    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    News Picks commentary here
    Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT
    Please include a link to the article for future readers
    as it may roll off the main page.


    ---

    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    He said he was waiting for the steak, and all he got was the parsley
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT

    This is how a juror described Oracle's evidence. Classic. Article found here.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Comes here
    Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT
    If you got any.


    ---

    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Links to articles missing the fact that the 2.8m was IF Oracle could prove infringement at trial
    Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:40 PM EDT
    There are lots of them :-(

    ---
    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 | # ]

    Disturbing that Google wanted to settle
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT
    Well, if I'm not mistaken, it almost didn't happen. Google wanted to settle
    early, and Oracle said no. Well, Google got away with it, thank goodness, but
    the settlement offer will only encourage more of this, uh, nonsense. And if
    software is just mathematics, why isn't anyone actually making that argument in
    a real courtroom?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Day 23, From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj Updated 3Xs
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT
    nice work groklaw

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Oracle's major obstacle on appeal
    Authored by: dcs on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:13 PM EDT
    The fact that the judge was so yielding to Oracle --
    particularly granting objections during trial -- is now going
    to play a major obstacle to Oracle's hopes.

    AFAIK (IANAL), they can only appeal on non-granted motions
    and objections. It is true that they had plenty non-granted
    motions, but mostly because their motions were very flawed.
    On the trial, from what was reported, they mostly got their
    way.

    ---
    Daniel C. Sobral

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Monetary Damages Available for Copyright Infringement
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT
    In order to foster a meaningful and (hopefully) understandable discussion regarding monetary damages awardable for Google's infringement of the nine lines of code, test files, and (God help us) SSO of the Java APIs, here is the pertinent part of Section 504 of the Copyright Act regarding monetary damages.
    § 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

    (a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —

    (1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

    (2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

    (b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

    (c) Statutory Damages. —

    (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

    (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now, if only Google would go after MS and their patent threats
    Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:10 PM EDT
    As those threats are now aimed at Motorola..

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Watch and wait? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:25 AM EDT
    Where to on the appeals?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:17 PM EDT
    I know that all patent appeals must go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal
    Circuit (CAFC), and appeals on copyright issues would normally go to the circuit
    court for the district where the initial trial was held, in this case the ninth
    circuit. But in a combined case like this, would the appeal have to be combined
    as well? In other words, If there are appeals on patent AND copyright issues,
    will they be split between the two circuits, or will they be combined into a
    single appeal to the CAFC,as they are the only ones who can hear patent appeals?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    James Gosling
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
    I was intrigued by his position in this affair as well. As the so-called father
    of Java I'd have thought that seeing his child grow up and conquer new lands
    would make him happy. The best explanation I can think of is that he has an
    emotional connection to the "Java" idea with the write once, run
    anywhere concept which is quite monolithic, and felt that Android introduced
    fragmentation and somehow see his baby diverge from how *he* had conceived it.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The jury were clearly intelligent! More so than BSF perhaps?
    Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:32 PM EDT
    They may not have been techies, but they were certainly not stupid. I think we found much the same with the SCO jury. The time they took suggests that there was serious and well-informed debate going on, not just attempts to pressurise the foreman into changing his mind. And, what is more important, in phase 2 they got the verdict exactly right, far better than it might have been.

    The good thing is that, should Oracle choose to appeal (doubtless BSF will advise them to, based on past record), there will be negligible scope for overturning findings of fact, and the appeal can only focus on points of law, i.e. did the judge get it wrong? What is more, the main thing that he did seem to get wrong favoured Oracle, so if Oracle are daft enough to appeal, the outcome is likely to be not to their liking, as they will force Google to counter-appeal.

    Hopefully, the judge will get the final thing right, and decide that APIs are not copyrightable, but even if he gets it wrong and Google end up paying a trivial sum for 9 lines of code, I hope that Google will just forget about an appeal and move on. It can't be worth the hassle. But there again, only a fool would sue over 9 lines of code.

    The sensible thing would be for the parties to just settle the 9 lines of code between themselves, for no more than they are worth, and move on, but with BSF involved I doubt that it will happen. What would be a fair cost for those lines of code? You could probably get someone to write them for less than $100.....

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Tomorrow is Be-Gentle-with-Safra-Katz-&-Larry-Ellison-Day -- what are you planning?
    Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:40 PM EDT
    Me -- I might be doing some serious Java
    programming for my Android tablet.

    bjd


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Before the appeal - more Motions
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 07:02 PM EDT
    I would predict - that before any appeal - there will be motions - for example -
    for the judge to overturn the jury verdict....

    Havent we seen this tactic before....

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    In other news...
    Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 07:18 PM EDT
    The US Geological Survey - San Fancisco Office could not confirm earthquake
    reports that had been originating from sources in the SF area early afternoon
    wednesday.

    Various news reporters, being huddled together for an unrelated story in
    downtown SF, had themselves reported hearing a loud thump, at around
    1 PM.

    One of them characterized the noise such as emitted when overly large
    egoes hit rock bottom.
    The USGS, being familiar with the latter, though less with the former, could
    not confirm.

    bjd


    [ Reply to This | # ]

      Someone remind Google
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
      that right after the judgment is finalized, they have to appeal every tiny
      little thing that didn't go their way.

      At least, that seemed to be one of the lessons from SCO v. world.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      red dress - Day 23, Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury: No Patent Infringement ~pj Updated 3Xs
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT
      After the SCO saga, this one crashed in a hurry. Boise must be losing
      his touch. You didn't even have time to pick out a dress color. Green?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      One outcome of this trial
      Authored by: mossc on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT
      Programmers will be much less likely to assign copyright of their code to
      ORACLE.

      The whole case smacks of desperation.

      Does Larry Ellison see some writing on the wall about the future of Oracle?

      Those who can, do, those who can't, sue.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      ...and made it possible for us to really know all the details of the proceedings.
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 09:54 PM EDT
      You failed to mention the volunteers also made it possible to create important
      Groklaw posts that may have AFFECTED the proceedings.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      "Oracle" rhymes with "debacle"
      Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT
      Or, at least it will when I say it, from now on. :)

      ---
      Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
      light.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      No comment from Patently O
      Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 12:12 AM EDT
      I wonder why.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Boomerang
      Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 12:59 AM EDT
      So far, it's more of a boomerang than a club.
      I'd rather it was more of a club than a boomerang.

      The point of a boomerang is that if it misses its target it returns to the thrower for another attempt, but if you throw a club it won't come back.

      Which reminds me: is Oracle's grounds for appeal that "we didn't present our case properly and we want another go?" For surely if "Right" was on their side and the unbiased (sic) Jury found for Google, then Oracle messed up in [presenting] their case, in which case: tough - you were the plaintiff and should have had everything sorted out properly; you chose your "best" Patents for a speedy trial and not only does the evidence you presented not prove [conclusively] that Google infringed, but the patents themselves are under question (the USPTO is checking their sloppy work on at least one of those patents - I was always told to check my answers at school - and [almost] found them to have been not proven as a novel invention)

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      • Boomerang - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:06 AM EDT
      • Still a club - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT
      Day 23, a day to remember
      Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:30 AM EDT
      Thanks!



      ---
      ______
      IMANAL


      .

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Who gets the Appeal?
      Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 06:57 AM EDT
      A few article back someone asked where the appeal would go. I didn't see an
      answer.

      Patent appeals go to the Federal Circuit. I don't expect much traction there
      although Oracle will probably try to attack the Judges Jury instructions and
      answers to the Jury Questions. They might also go back to the beginning and
      challenge the judges order to limit the number of claims tried.

      Copyright appeals go to the 9th. Thse will almost certainly be based on SSO,
      Fair Use and de minimums. I expect both sides to appeal.

      Some issues overlap, so I wonder what happens is they both rule differently on
      those matters? I don't see it being much of an issue unless Oracle can get the
      patent verdict thrown out somehow.

      So are were going to have two sets of appeals in two different Circuits?

      ---
      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 | # ]

      Lest we forget
      Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:01 AM EDT
      This case was originally about nine patents that patented the use of math concepts in computer programming when used for specific purposes, as with the concept of programming bits of a 'Virtual Machine'.

      Never let yourself forget that a VM is no more special than the Linux kernel or a 'Hello World' program. You should be permitted by law to use math any way you like when you are programming a computer.

      A reminder of the Supreme opinion in Gottschalk v. Benson:
      It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case.

      The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.

      It may be that the patent laws should be extended to cover these programs, a policy matter to which we are not competent to speak. The President's Commission on the Patent System rejected the proposal that these programs be patentable:

      "Uncertainty now exists as to whether the statute permits a valid patent to be granted on programs. Direct attempts to patent programs have been rejected on the ground of nonstatutory subject matter.

      Indirect attempts to obtain patents and avoid the rejection, by drafting claims as a process, or a machine or components thereof programmed in a given manner, rather than as a program itself, have confused the issue further and should not be permitted.
      The Oracle patents were not even on specific algorithms such as the one in Benson. They were patents on the use of mathematical ideas and concepts. It was impossible to code around them in the way it would have been possible to code around the Benson invention.

      ---
      Regards
      Ian Al
      Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      "Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment&damage Java"
      Authored by: webster on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:52 AM EDT
      .

      So overwhelming that ...

      _______ One of the jurors believed it for five days.

      _______ Our expert had to come back on the stand and change and expand his
      explanation.

      _______ ...

      .

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      • Ummm... so...? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
      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 )