|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
| https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast/oracle-vs-google-trial [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oracle wants to read claim language to jury. Alsup not convinced - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- Teams talking about static initialization & simulated execution - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
- Rachel King; Reached the end of the game? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- Jury have 3 hours for verdict, or a 5 day weekend. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT
- VERDICT REACHED! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- Tweets from the court - Authored by: eamacnaghten on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:58 PM EDT
- No infringement on all patent claims! (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:58 PM EDT
- Some tought on copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- OpenJonathan Anyone know where I could score some free range crow? I've got a friend who's just - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT
- What a waste of millions of dollars! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- Tweets from the court - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- Says it all. Thank you Feldegast. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
- Tweets from the court - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- Day 23, Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury Deliberations ~pj - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT
- Day 23, Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury Deliberations ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
- CourtTechnicalExperts.org ? - Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT
- Day 23, Oracle v. Google Trial - Jury Deliberations ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT
- Day 23, Oracle v. Google Trial - NOBODY - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 09:05 PM EDT
- Not necessary if the USPTO abided by the law of the land. ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
| Dude I miss our court reporters SO MUCH :( [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- Mod +5, This is so true - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
- Yes er No - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: blaisepascal on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 09:58 PM EDT
- Engineering classes, not CS - Authored by: artp on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- Begging yer pardon, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 05:25 AM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Nivag on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 07:56 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: rcsteiner on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 08:56 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- No - Authored by: rcsteiner on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- What an API is? Is actually fairly simple to figure out (from an experienced eye). - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- You must be a programmer... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:38 PM EDT
- Nice choice of 'things' - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:14 AM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
| Apparently a verdict has been reached... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- To the appeals court.... (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT
- re Oracle - Thats got to hurt :-) - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:00 PM EDT
- That 'Expert' Mueller...Say what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT
- That 'Expert' Mueller...Say what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- "Jury doesn't find Google to infringe two Oracle patents -- but the litigation is far from over" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- "I publish *my* opinions that I stand by 100%, and no one has ever been able to buy my opinions" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT
- "I publish *my* opinions that I stand by 100%, and no one has ever been able to buy my opinions" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- "I publish *my* opinions that I stand by 100%, and no one has ever been able to buy my opinions" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- FM " no one has ever been able to buy my opinions" - Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- Probably true - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- Renting them, on the other hand, well... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 09:03 PM EDT
- Well, I don't buy it. ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT
- Well it doesn't take much for him to block people on twitter: - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
- BREAKING: Complete Google win on patent infringement claims by Oracle. NO INFRINGEMENT. - Authored by: hairbear on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:08 PM EDT
- BREAKING: Complete Google win on patent infringement claims by Oracle. NO INFRINGEMENT. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- After a busy day - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
| Will there even be a jury trial on damages? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Damages?j - Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- No, the jury has been dismissed (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Damages? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT
- Damages? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:06 PM EDT
- Not in the EU - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- And remember to thank PJ, too! - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- Celebrate Here!!! YES!!!! - Authored by: mirrorslap on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- Celebrate Here!!! And Thanks to Mark! - Authored by: webster on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- Thank yous! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- a most welcome verdict ... - Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT
- My thanks added! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- Celebrate Here!!! - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:16 PM EDT
- Celebrate I will, surely!!! - Authored by: jkrise on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Thanks everyone at Groklaw. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT
- Celebrate Here? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Thanks PJ, Mark and the Groklaw community - Authored by: belgianguy on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Florian swimming frantically uphill - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- Celebrate Here!!! - Authored by: rcsteiner on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Celebrate Here!!! - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT
- Indeed. - Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 07:14 PM EDT
- Thanks to PJ, the reporters, the jury - Authored by: symbolset on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:25 AM EDT
- Celebrate Here!!! - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- Case isn't closed yet - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- Error? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
| Florian is on full damage control. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- Now, support Libre Office - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT
- Now, support Libre Office - Authored by: ais523 on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- Now, support Libre Office - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- What about VirtualBox? Its the only one that hasn't successfully forked. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- Now, support Libre Office - Authored by: scav on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- Now, support Libre Office - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- Now, support Libre Office - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 06:19 AM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- Counterclaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:59 AM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- Summing it up - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:02 PM EDT
- Summing it up - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- Summing it up - Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
| nice work groklaw [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 12:12 AM EDT |
I wonder why.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:30 AM EDT |
Thanks!
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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
|
|
|
|
