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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Google's Turn - Files JMOL Motion re rangeCheck function ~pj
Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 10:17 AM EDT

Immediately after Oracle's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied by Judge William Alsup, Google has filed its own. Google's renewed Rule 50(b) motion is about Count VIII of Oracle's complaint regarding the rangeCheck function, 9 lines of code, which Google argues is de minimis as a matter of law. In the alternative, Google asks for a new trial on this issue. But like Oracle, Google states that it is filing this motion simply to preserve its appeal rights, now that Oracle has stated it will appeal.

The jury found for Oracle on these 9 lines of code, the only thing Oracle won from the jury that still stands. Oracle's own expert gave them no specific value, but Oracle tried for infringer's profits over those 9 lines of code, and while Judge Alsup told Oracle's lawyer, David Boies, that the request was bordering on the ridiculous, it showed the extreme lengths Oracle was willing to go to, so Google is now making sure it leaves nothing on the table, just in case Oracle tries something like that again. It's like chess. If you see your opponent move his knight in a way that could mean nothing or could mean an attack down the road, you assume the latter and move to block the strategy before it reaches full flower. Here's the verdict form [PDF], to refresh your memory.

The hearing on this motion, unless the judge denies it without oral argument the way he did Oracle's JMOL motion, will be on August 23rd at 8 AM in Judge Alsup's courtroom in the US District Court building in San Francisco. I hope some of you can be there.

The filings:

07/17/2012 - 1222 - MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Portions of Count VIII of Oracle's Amended Complaint, or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial filed by Google Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 8/23/2012 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 7/31/2012. Replies due by 8/7/2012. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 7/17/2012) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 - 1223 - Proposed Order re 1222 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Portions of Count VIII of Oracle's Amended Complaint, or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial by Google Inc.. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 7/17/2012) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

Here's a snip showing you the essence of Google's argument:
The rangeCheck function is nine lines of code out of millions in the J2SE platform. The J2SE platform is the work Oracle registered with the Copyright Office and the copyright in the J2SE platform is the copyright that Oracle accused Google of infringing in this litigation. Thus, the J2SE platform is the "work as a whole" for purposes of the de minimis analysis as it relates to the rangeCheck function. Indeed, as explained in Google's prior copyright briefing (e.g., Dkt. 955 and 993), the J2SE platform is the "work as a whole" for all purposes. Based upon the trial record, no reasonable jury could find that Google's use of the rangeCheck function was anything other than de minimis when compared to the entire J2SE platform.

Even if the Arrays.java file in J2SE (the file in which the rangeCheck function is found, and the only file which calls the rangeCheck function) is the "work as a whole" and it is not Google's use of the rangeCheck function still is de minimis as a matter of law. The nine lines of code that comprise the rangeCheck function are quantitatively insignificant when compared to the 3,179 lines in Arrays.java, and Oracle failed to present evidence sufficient to support a finding that the rangeCheck function is qualitatively significant.

For these reasons, and all the reasons stated in Dkt. 955, 984, 993, 1007, and 1043, which are incorporated herein by reference, Google's motion should be granted.

....

"For an unauthorized use of a copyrighted work to be actionable, the use must be significant enough to constitute infringement. This means that even where the fact of copying is conceded, no legal consequences will follow from that fact unless the copying is substantial." Newton, 388 F.3d at 1192-93 (internal citations omitted). "Substantiality is measured by considering the qualitative and quantitative significance of the copied portion in relation to the plaintiff's work as a whole." Id. at 1195. The undisputed evidence at trial showed that, as a matter of law, the rangeCheck function is quantitatively and qualitatively insignificant when compared to either version 1.4 or version 5.0 of the J2SE platform.

The rangeCheck function is quantitatively insignificant. It is nine lines of code. TX 623 at 25. The J2SE platform includes millions of lines of code. RT 2245:6-8 (Reinhold); RT 2185:10-14 (Astrachan). No reasonable jury could find that such a small amount of allegedly copied code is quantitatively significant. See Newton, 388 F.3d at 1196-97 (holding that no

(5)

reasonable jury could find that a six-second snippet of a four-and-half-minute song was quantitatively significant).

The rangeCheck function is also qualitatively insignificant. According to Josh Bloch, who wrote the code, the rangeCheck function is "[v]ery, very simple"; "[a]ny competent high school programmer could write it." RT 815:13-16 (Bloch). Even Oracle's expert Dr. Mitchell conceded that "a good high school programmer" could write the rangeCheck code. RT 1316:2425 (Mitchell). In fact, the rangeCheck code was so insignificant that it is not even a part of the most recent and current versions of Android. See RT 825:8-19 (Bloch).

When asked whether the rangeCheck function has any economic significance outside the library of which it is a part, Dr. Mitchell stated that he was "not sure" it had any such significance. RT 1316:12-18. Dr. Mitchell also testified that the rangeCheck function is purportedly called over 2,600 times when an Android emulator is started up. See RT 1329:15-21. But he offered no testimony that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that a function called that many times is qualitatively significant. Mere frequency of use of a trivial element cannot support a finding of qualitative significance. A typical novel might include the word "the" thousands of times, but that does not render the word "the" qualitatively significant to Moby Dick. Dr. Mitchell's testimony about how many times the rangeCheck function is purportedly called during the startup of an Android emulator (and not an actual Android device), standing alone and without any frame of reference, cannot support a finding of qualitative significance. Thus, on the complete trial record, no reasonable jury could find that the rangeCheck function was anything other than qualitatively insignificant. See Newton, 388 F.3d at 1196-1197 (holding that no reasonable jury could find that a six-second snippet of a song was qualitatively significant where that section was "no more significant than any other section.").

You can find all those referenced docket number filings on our Oracle v. Google Timeline page. But I'll make it easy for you:
  • #955, Google's Copyright Liability Trial Brief
  • #984 Google's Rule 50(a) JMOL motion
  • #993 [PDF] Google's corrected Copyright Liability Trial Brief
  • #1007 [PDF] Google's 2nd JMOL Motion re Count VIII of Oracle's Complaint
  • #1043, Google's Memorandum in Support of #1007
  • #36 Oracle's Amended Complaint

And here is the motion, as text:

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

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
[email]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - # 184325
[email]
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
[email]
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER
(Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[email]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[email]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[email]
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[email]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[email]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA

GOOGLE INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION FOR RULE 50(b)
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON
PORTIONS OF COUNT VIII OF ORACLE'S
AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL

Date: August 23, 2012
Time: 8:00 a.m.
Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Hon. William Alsup

(1)

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on August 23, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. or at such other time as the Court may direct, before the Honorable William Alsup, United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") will, and hereby does, move the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law on portions of Count VIII of Oracle America Inc.'s ("Oracle") Amended Complaint, or, in the alternative, for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.

This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, documents incorporated by reference, the entire record in this action, any matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any evidence or argument that may be submitted to the Court in connection with the hearing on this motion or in the reply.

Dated: July 17, 2012

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

By: /s/ Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

(2)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Google files this renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL"), or, in the alternative, a new trial solely for the purpose of preserving its rights on appeal in light of the fact that Oracle has stated its intention to file an appeal in this matter.

Google is entitled to JMOL, or, alternatively, a new trial on the portion of Oracle's copyright claim that relate to the rangeCheck function. As stated more fully in Google's Rule 50(a) JMOL motions (Dkt. 984, 1007, and 1043), which are incorporated herein by reference, Google's use of the rangeCheck function is de minimis as a matter of law. The rangeCheck function is nine lines of code out of millions in the J2SE platform. The J2SE platform is the work Oracle registered with the Copyright Office and the copyright in the J2SE platform is the copyright that Oracle accused Google of infringing in this litigation. Thus, the J2SE platform is the "work as a whole" for purposes of the de minimis analysis as it relates to the rangeCheck function. Indeed, as explained in Google's prior copyright briefing (e.g., Dkt. 955 and 993), the J2SE platform is the "work as a whole" for all purposes. Based upon the trial record, no reasonable jury could find that Google's use of the rangeCheck function was anything other than de minimis when compared to the entire J2SE platform.

Even if the Arrays.java file in J2SE (the file in which the rangeCheck function is found, and the only file which calls the rangeCheck function) is the "work as a whole" and it is not Google's use of the rangeCheck function still is de minimis as a matter of law. The nine lines of code that comprise the rangeCheck function are quantitatively insignificant when compared to the 3,179 lines in Arrays.java, and Oracle failed to present evidence sufficient to support a finding that the rangeCheck function is qualitatively significant.

For these reasons, and all the reasons stated in Dkt. 955, 984, 993, 1007, and 1043, which are incorporated herein by reference, Google's motion should be granted.

II. JMOL LEGAL STANDARD

Judgment as a matter of law is warranted when "a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient

(3)

evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue ... ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). Rule 50 "allows the trial court to remove ... issues from the jury's consideration when the facts are sufficiently clear that the law requires a particular result." Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 448 (2000) (internal quotations omitted). The standard for granting judgment as a matter of law, in practice, mirrors the standard for granting summary judgment, and "the inquiry under each is the same." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51 (1986).

III. ARGUMENT

A. The J2SE platform is the "work as a whole."

In deciding whether alleged copying is de minimis, the significance of the material must be measured "in relation to the plaintiff's work as a whole." Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). Over Google's objection, the Court instructed the jury that "[f]or purposes of Question No. 3, the 'work as a whole' is the compilable code for the individual file ... ." Dkt. 1018 at 14-18; RT 2415:18-20, 2418:14-17 (charging conference). That instruction was error. As explained in Google's prior copyright briefing on this issue (Dkt. 955 at 5:2-12:2, Dkt. 984 at 5:1-10, Dkt. 993 at 3:9-6:5, and Dkt. 1043 at n. 9), the Court should have instructed the jury to compare the rangeCheck code to the entire J2SE platform to determine whether it was de minimis.

Oracle based its infringement claim in this case on two registered "works": versions 1.4 and 5.0 of the J2SE "platform." Dkt. 36, Ex. H; see also TX 464 and 475. The registrations for those works do not suggest that the "work" being registered was anything other than the complete J2SE platform. See TX 464 and 475. Indeed, Oracle pleaded as much in its Amended Complaint, alleging that "Google's Android infringes Oracle America's copyrights in the Java platform." Dkt. 36 at 39 (emphasis added).

"[I]t is the registration that sets the scope for the copyright protection." Express, LLC v. Fetish Group, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1218 (C.D. Cal. 2006). There is no proper legal or evidentiary basis on which either of Oracle's two copyright registrations in two different versions of the J2SE platform as whole can be subdivided, file-by-file, into separate copyright-protected "works." Thus, the J2SE platform versions 1.4 and 5.0 not an individual file within those

(4)

platform versions (i.e., Arrays.java) are the "works as a whole" for purposes of the infringement analysis. See id.; NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute, 364 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2004) (rejecting plaintiff's attempt to subdivide a single registered copyright into multiple works); see also 17 USC 411.

Additionally, as explained in Google's prior briefing (e.g., Dkt. 955 and 993), the J2SE platform in its entirety must be the "work as a whole" for all purposes. Google's argument herein therefore applies to all aspects of Oracle's copyright claim, not merely to the portion of Oracle's claim directed at the rangeCheck function. To the extent necessary to preserve the work-as-a-whole issue for appeal (and Google understands it is not necessary on this issue but does so in an abundance of caution), Google hereby renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, moves for a new trial on the portions of Oracle's copyright claim directed at the allegedly "decompiled files." See Dkt. 1211 at 2:12-16. For all the reasons stated in Dkt. 984, 1007, and 1043, which are incorporated herein by reference, the "decompiled files" are de minimis as a matter of law when compared to the J2SE platform as a whole.

B. The rangeCheck function is de minimis as a matter of law when compared to the J2SE platform as a whole.

"For an unauthorized use of a copyrighted work to be actionable, the use must be significant enough to constitute infringement. This means that even where the fact of copying is conceded, no legal consequences will follow from that fact unless the copying is substantial." Newton, 388 F.3d at 1192-93 (internal citations omitted). "Substantiality is measured by considering the qualitative and quantitative significance of the copied portion in relation to the plaintiff's work as a whole." Id. at 1195. The undisputed evidence at trial showed that, as a matter of law, the rangeCheck function is quantitatively and qualitatively insignificant when compared to either version 1.4 or version 5.0 of the J2SE platform.

The rangeCheck function is quantitatively insignificant. It is nine lines of code. TX 623 at 25. The J2SE platform includes millions of lines of code. RT 2245:6-8 (Reinhold); RT 2185:10-14 (Astrachan). No reasonable jury could find that such a small amount of allegedly copied code is quantitatively significant. See Newton, 388 F.3d at 1196-97 (holding that no

(5)

reasonable jury could find that a six-second snippet of a four-and-half-minute song was quantitatively significant).

The rangeCheck function is also qualitatively insignificant. According to Josh Bloch, who wrote the code, the rangeCheck function is "[v]ery, very simple"; "[a]ny competent high school programmer could write it." RT 815:13-16 (Bloch). Even Oracle's expert Dr. Mitchell conceded that "a good high school programmer" could write the rangeCheck code. RT 1316:2425 (Mitchell). In fact, the rangeCheck code was so insignificant that it is not even a part of the most recent and current versions of Android. See RT 825:8-19 (Bloch).

When asked whether the rangeCheck function has any economic significance outside the library of which it is a part, Dr. Mitchell stated that he was "not sure" it had any such significance. RT 1316:12-18. Dr. Mitchell also testified that the rangeCheck function is purportedly called over 2,600 times when an Android emulator is started up. See RT 1329:15-21. But he offered no testimony that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that a function called that many times is qualitatively significant. Mere frequency of use of a trivial element cannot support a finding of qualitative significance. A typical novel might include the word "the" thousands of times, but that does not render the word "the" qualitatively significant to Moby Dick. Dr. Mitchell's testimony about how many times the rangeCheck function is purportedly called during the startup of an Android emulator (and not an actual Android device), standing alone and without any frame of reference, cannot support a finding of qualitative significance. Thus, on the complete trial record, no reasonable jury could find that the rangeCheck function was anything other than qualitatively insignificant. See Newton, 388 F.3d at 1196-1197 (holding that no reasonable jury could find that a six-second snippet of a song was qualitatively significant where that section was "no more significant than any other section.").

Therefore, for these reasons and all the reasons stated in Dkt. 955, 984, 993, 1007, and 1043, Google's JMOL motion should be granted.

C. The rangeCheck function is de minimis as a matter of law when compared to the Arrays.java file in the J2SE platform.

Even if the Court properly instructed the jury that the "work as a whole" for purposes of

(6)

the de minimis test was the compilable code for the individual file, Google's use of the rangeCheck function still is quantitatively and qualitatively de minimis as a matter of law.

The rangeCheck function is found in the Arrays.java file in J2SE. That file is 3,179 lines long. TX 623 at 61. Thus, the rangeCheck function is less than three-tenths of one percent of the Arrays.java file. And the rangeCheck code is also qualitatively insignificant when compared to the Arrays.java file, just as it is when compared to the entire J2SE platform. No reasonable jury could find that the rangeCheck function is anything other than quantitatively and qualitatively de minimis in the context of the Arrays.java file as a whole. See Newton, 388 F.3d at 1196-97. For these reasons, and all the reasons stated in Dkt. 984, 1007, and 1043, Google's JMOL motion as to the portion of Oracle's copyright claim related to the rangeCheck function should be granted.

D. In the alternative, Google is entitled to a new trial.

A new trial may be warranted where "the verdict is against the weight of the evidence." Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251 (1940)). For all the reasons Google is entitled to JMOL on the portion of Oracle's copyright claim related to the rangeCheck function (supra Part III.A-C, Dkt. 984, 1007, and 1043), Google is also entitled to a new trial on that claim. Google makes this alternative request for a new trial solely for the purpose of preserving that issue on appeal.

IV. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Google's motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, a new trial should be granted.

Dated: July 17, 2012

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

By: /s/ Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

(7)


  


Google's Turn - Files JMOL Motion re rangeCheck function ~pj | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Google's Turn - Files JMOL Motion re rangeCheck function ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
I'd think Google has at least half a shot at this one. To put it into
perspective, the period at the end of this final sentence is more quantitatively
important to this work than those 9 lines of code are to the J2SE code base, and
nobody in their right mind would claim copyright infringement on it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:32 AM EDT
If any are required

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT
For the interesting but unrelated stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT
Please put the news pick title in the title of your comment

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES here
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:37 AM EDT
Tanks once again to the volunteers. Please keep up this good work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boies and Dog versus World
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 11:50 AM EDT
It's deja vu all over again, with talented lawyers fending off ankle biting from
another Boies plaintiff.

I wonder how that guy gets his clients?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google's Turn - Files JMOL Motion re rangeCheck function ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT

I'm beginning to think this lawsuit was just a battle/negotiation about databases, Oracle's really money maker.

An article at Slashdot today 'NSA Mimics Google ...' would seem to indicate Google could come out into the BIG database business, like Terabyte big, with their internal product called BigTable.

Maybe Oracle would have been working on a settlement that would license BigTable or a non-compete agreement. If Oracle had won their lawsuit, they would have been in a good position to get a settlement, public and private. Low cash settlement for the public and with the non-compete agreement private.

Sort of a 'gentlemen's agreement. Google you stay out of the database markets, and we, Oracle will stay out of the cell phone market.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The previous decision on the 50(a) motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT
You can find all those referenced docket number filings on our Oracle v. Google Timeline page. But I'll make it easy for you:
One thing that P.J. didn't include (unless I just didn't see it) is Judge Alsup's decision on the original Rule 50(a) motion. That was covered in this story. It strikes me as a bit fuzzy, so maybe Google has a chance, but I doubt it.

Judge Alsup didn't say it was de minimis, but he downplayed the significance.
Oracle has made much of nine lines of code that crept into both Android and Java. This circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of appeals.
After explaining the circumstances, he just says that Google admitted copying the lines and says that he was finished talking about it.
Since the remainder of this order addresses only the issue concerning structure, sequence and organization, and since rangeCheck has nothing to do with that issue, rangeCheck will not be mentioned again, but the reader will please remember that it has been readily conceded that these nine lines of code found their way into an early version of Android.
At the bottom, he clearly found for Google with respect to SSO, which was part of the same Rule 50(a) motion (Dkt. No. 984), but didn't specifically say anything about rangeCheck. That and the "To the extent..." language would seem to imply a no.
To the extent stated herein, Googles Rule 50 motions regarding copyrightability are GRANTED (Dkt. Nos. 984, 1007).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The use of the word "the"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 09:02 AM EDT
The range check code is better described as analogous to a cliche or idiom, such as "Once upon a time" or "Please stay on the line, your call will be answered shortly". The difference is that while no significant work would be able to avoid using the word "the", a work could easily avoid any given idiom or cliche - even though any given use is hardly worth a second thought, let alone a jury trial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )