|
|
| Oracle v. Google Case Management Hearing Reset to June 20 ~ pj |
 |
|
Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 01:12 AM EDT
|
The case management hearing in Oracle v. Google has been changed to June 20 at 11 AM. It was set for June 21, but Oracle's lawyer had a conflict. So if you were planning to go, reset your calendar. I'm thinking perhaps that's when we'll find out how the judge plans to handle the damages on the 9 lines that were mistakenly put in Android by their original author (who had then donated them to Java and been thanked for them) and the test files that never made it into Android that a contractor copied contrary to Google's instructions. Yes, friends, that's all there is to it. And the judge has ordered the lawyers to pay Dr. James Kearl, the neutral technical adviser to the court, prior to the hearing. I'd only be guessing if I told you why that was necessary, or even if it was. This judge, as you've seen, likes to run a tight ship. But since both sides
objected to Dr. Kearl's report and he never took the stand when it turned out there would not be a damages phase, maybe there was the hint of a perception in the air that it might not be at the top of anyone's To Do list. No matter how I do the damages math, Oracle is in the red big time on this litigation. And Google, although it won, is still out millions to achieve it. Maybe that's why the judge is making sure Dr. Kearl gets paid. It's got to hurt. What a waste, when you think this money could have been spent on products for you and me, their customers, who in the end have to pay for everything, if you really think about it.
Here are the filings:
06/05/2012 - 1206 - ORDER
REGARDING DR. JAMES KEARL. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 5, 2012.
(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2012) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
06/05/2012 - 1207 -
STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Set/Reset Hearings Regarding Case
Management Conference filed by Oracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael)
(Filed on 6/5/2012) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
06/05/2012 - 1208 - ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION by Hon. William Alsup
granting 1207 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2012)
(Entered: 06/05/2012)
06/05/2012 - Set/Reset Hearing re 1204 Order Case Management
Conference set for 6/20/2012 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San
Francisco. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2012) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
Here's the order on resetting the hearing:
STIPULATION
WHEREAS, the Court has scheduled a case management conference on June 21, 2012, at 11 a.m.;
WHEREAS, lead counsel for Oracle has a conflicting obligation in another case on that day; and
WHEREAS, the parties are both available for a case management conference on June 20, 2012, at 11 a.m., which date and time the Deputy Clerk has indicated is available on the Court’s calendar;
NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows:
1. The case management conference scheduled for June 21, 2012, at 11 a.m. shall be rescheduled for June 20, 2012, at 11 a.m.
ORDER
The foregoing stipulation is approved, and IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:
Honorable William Alsup
Judge of the United States District Court
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
Please post any corrections here.
Quantity is substitute fo accurancy.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: froggie on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
| Please place your Off Post Topical items in this locational area [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: froggie on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
This is an area for Picky News items. Note that this is not a reference to the
New Orleans Times-Picayune Newspaper - but it could be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: froggie on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
An area dedicated to posting the work of those intrepid souls who transcribe the
Comes documents for all of us to use. Our sincere thanks to them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
Whilst Google obviously won big overall, since Google lost on some issues,
presumably each side will be liable for its own legal costs? Maybe someone could
make an educated guess.....?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Costs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
- Costs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
Is that not more likely to be held in chambers?
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
While I completely agree with the final result, this case was completely
unnecessary and a result of the failure on Google's part not to clarify the
original scope of the discussions with Sun and thinking that there was safety in
ambiguity by not asking the questions you do not want to really know the answers
to e.g. "do you believe that the API are copyrighted?" The pity is at
the time of the discussions they probably would have receive the answer they
wanted.
Not too surprising for a young inexperienced tech company though. But for the
advice of a couple well seasoned lawyers who sat us down and gave us "the
talk", we almost made the same blunders a couple times.
The best lawyers the ones who keep you out of the courts altogether.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
Actually PJ you are mistaken. The trial record shows that the 9 test files was
put into Android source repository by the company Noser. The files were reverse
enginereered and very much not created by Noser.
Noser did this despite written instructions from Google to only use clean
sources. I think that Google might have a pretty solid case if they want sue
Noser to make them pay for their error. Hopefully the charges will be so small
that Google don't care.
It would be awkward if trivial test files that verify an API has been correctly
implemented was considered a serious breach of copyright.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
As the big order last week was a bit vague as to which
pending motions it
disposed with, it would be good to
supplement Groklaw's overview of the case
with a table of
pending and closed motions, ordered by date.
This would
be a table with the following 6 columns:
- Date the date
when the request was made by a
party.
- Docket or transcript
location of original motion
or other request, any responses, rulings and
other followup
in chronological order. Examples of one location: "Dkt #123
App B #3 part 1", or "TX 1234.250 part 2". The first
location raised the
request, the last one disposed of it
unless status is
"pending".
- Party (G or O)
- Type This can be
Motion, Objection, Claim, Demand
etc.
- What Short one sentence
summary.
- Status This can be one of "Granted", "Denied",
"Moot", "Conceded", "Withdrawn" or "Pending".
Note if a
request was disposed of in parts its table
entry is split up in parts, by
appending "part 1", "part 2"
etc. to the docket or transcript location, like in
the
examples given.
For instance I think the Lindholm e-mail privilege
appeal
might still be pending, the claim that Google is guilty of
indirect
infringement is withdrawn, direct patent
infringement is denied (by Jury), API
usage affirmative
defenses are currently moot over the judges ruling on API
copyright validity. Some verbal objections at trial were
disposed of
instantly, while some written motions have been
argued back and forth over many
docket entries.
I think there is already a similar table for SCO v.
IBM
as part of the timeline.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
"What a waste, when you think this money could have been spent on products
for you and me, their customers, who in the end have to pay for everything, if
you really think about it."
No problem for Oracle, it will just raise the prices for its software and
support services. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
The true waste: an entire jury, being paid $15/day for weeks...
...so that two private multi-billion dollar companies can settle a dispute.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Settle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 08:02 PM EDT
- Unfair characterization - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 10:18 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
I'm not so sure this was a complete waste. A decision that APIs are not
copyrightable has to be worth something.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
I always thought that the (unsaid) law in America is that the loser in a
litigation
has the responsibility of the winner's legal fees as well. Maybe this has to be
stated upfront, but if that is so then what is stopping certain patent trolls to
treat the legal system as some kind of lotto?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
