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
Oracle and Google File Appeals ~pj
Friday, October 05 2012 @ 09:23 AM EDT

Oracle and Google have now both filed the expected appeals of the final order [PDF]in the API case Oracle lost to Google. Google lost on some tiny, side issues, but it does appeal them in a cross-appeal to Oracle's appeal, which was filed the day before:
Notice is hereby given that Defendant Google Inc. cross-appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Final Judgment (Dkt. 1211) entered in this action on June 20, 2012, including, without limitation, the portion of that judgment entering judgment for Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. on its claim for copyright infringement as to the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java, and the eight decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and one “ACL” file).
It also separately appeals the court's denial [PDF] of its motion [PDF] for a judgment as a matter of law:
Notice is hereby given that Defendant, Google Inc. (hereinafter “Google”), appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Order Denying Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and New Trial (Dkt. No. 1242) entered in this action on September 4, 2012.
So, what is Oracle appealing? Everything under the sun regarding the trial, except the denial of its own JMOL motion after the trial was concluded:
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Final Judgment (Dkt. No. 1211) entered in this action on the 20th day of June, 2012, and from any and all other orders and rulings adverse to Oracle.
I suppose that "any and all other orders and rulings adverse to Oracle" language might be an umbrella intended to include the denial of its JMOL motion, actuallly, now that I'm reading the wording carefully. But what they really care about is getting a ruling that Java APIs are copyrightable, including "structure, sequence, and organization of the accused 37 Java API packages". That was their claim against Google, that it infringed those interfaces. Here's the order Oracle didn't like on that point (Docket No. 1211).

Appeals matter, as you can see.

I hope you also see why politicians are currently trying their best to stack the courts with judges who see things their way. People who want to win no matter how, and who believe in might-makes-right, view it as a great solution. But I hope you see why it is so important to keep politics out of the courts. What is the point of having a judicial system where you get rubber-stamped, political results, rather than results based on the facts of your case? It makes a mockery of the concept of blind justice, not to mention Constitutional principles, meaning not looking at who the parties are but just evenly treating all comers, based on the law and the facts.

The entire US system was originally designed to protect the little guy, the least powerful person in society, from the full power of the government. Folks who designed it had already experienced in Europe what it was like to be a minority group religiously or politically in a system where the king and his supporters would come to power and kill off or toss in prison members of opposing factions or just folks with the currently "wrong" religion or politics.

The US wanted to be different. It wanted a system that would protect everyone by creating a system that did not follow the might-makes-right way of doing things, where even the most powerless was provided certain protections from the majority. Voting in judges, therefore, is probably the very last way you want to put them into office, frankly, as retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been trying to tell the country for a couple of years now.

Why? Because once the public loses all hope of fairness in the courts, it's a very sad day, because it breaks down the rule of law. Respect for the law and for decisions issuing from the courts is the glue that holds it all together, if you really think deeply about it.

The documents:

10/03/2012 - 1243 - NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Federal Circuit as to [1211] Judgment by Oracle America, Inc.. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0971-7174810. - PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.'S NOTICE OF APPEAL - Appeal Record due by 11/2/2012. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 10/3/2012)

10/04/2012 - 1244 - Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals as to 1243 Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit, by Oracle America, Inc. Appeal Record due by 11/5/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Information Sheet)(dtm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2012) (Entered: 10/04/2012)

10/04/2012 - 1245 - NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Federal Circuit of 1242 by Google Inc.. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0971-7176729. Appeal Record due by 11/5/2012. (Hirsch, Steven) (Filed on 10/4/2012) Modified on 10/4/2012 (dtm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/04/2012)

10/04/2012 - 1246 - Application for Refund, Receipt Number 0971-7176689 by Google Inc.. (Hirsch, Steven) (Filed on 10/4/2012) (Entered: 10/04/2012)

10/04/2012 - 1247 - Amended NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Federal Circuit as to 1242 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Google Inc.. See receipt number 0971-7176729 Appeal Record due by 11/5/2012. (Hirsch, Steven) (Filed on 10/4/2012) (Entered: 10/04/2012)

10/04/2012 - 1248 - NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL as to 1243 Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit, by Google Inc.. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0971-7177323. Appeal Record due by 11/5/2012. (Hirsch, Steven) (Filed on 10/4/2012) (Entered: 10/04/2012)

The amended notice by Google is because the first one had the wrong docket number for the order being appealed.

There are also trial exhibits filed in paper and other non-digital formats, which we'd love to get if anyone can stop by the court:

Filed & Entered: 10/03/2012 - Exhibit
Docket Text: TRIAL EXHIBITS #3536, #3543, #3544, and #3547 Located in Vault, Section Wall "D". (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2012)
We at Groklaw can cover the expense for you, which should be minimal. Email me please, if you can do this so we can all have a look. If you can scan them for us and send them to me that way, that would be ideal.

  


Oracle and Google File Appeals ~pj | 168 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: alisonken1 on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT
Quick summary in title: Kerrections -> Corrections

Then any extra info like where it's at or any commentary in
the comments box


---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:00 AM EDT
Please make links clickable

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT
Please make links clickable

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcribing
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:02 AM EDT
Thank you for your support

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alternatives to judge voting?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT
Quoth PJ "Voting in judges, therefore, is probably the very
last way you want to put them into office, frankly, as
retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been
trying to tell the country for a couple of years now."

OK, but what exactly is the alternative? Judges appointed
by politicians, who are themselves chosen by voters? The
Supreme Court is appointed, not voted, but we have a highly
politicized high court, and the balance swings suddenly
(whoever is in office when a justice dies or retires). You
also get the inefficiency of judges who know they're not
still up to it staying on to wait for an ideallogically
aligned president to be replaced.

Plus, voting allows bad judges to be removed, and there are
bad judges out there (witness the "screw you, Supreme
Court!" attitude of a disturbing percentage of the Federal
Circuit.

What I'd really like to see (in an ideal world) is a peer-
reviewed selection of judges based on fairness and knowledge
of the law. I'd also like to catch a leprechaun.

Don't get me wrong - I agree judge election is a step
towards majoritarianism. I just don't see a realistic
apolitical alternative that will realistically produce
materially better judges.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle and Google File Appeals ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT
I believe that very sad day already came. It is very evident
that true respect for laws and the court system has gone by
the wayside. The lesser people are constantly being thrown
under the chariot wheels of the wealthy and powerful for the
sake of money and property to be gained.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"I appeal everything"
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 11:15 AM EDT
Can you really say "Everything that was decided against us was wrong, so we
appeal all of that"?

If you can, then what does it mean to fail to preserve an issue for appeal?
Wouldn't every lawyer just add that boilerplate into every appeal just in case?

It doesn't seem to help narrow down the issues that the appeals court would need
to decide, does it? At the very least, shouldn't the appellant be required to
list the specific decisions?

--Joe

[ Reply to This | # ]

The US Wanted To Be Different (NOT!)
Authored by: dobbo on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT

If the US wanted to be different why did it base it's legal system so much on English law?

I remember at the start of Bill Clinton's trial that is lawyers quoted to articles of English Common Law in this opening remarks.

The influence of the Magna Carta on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is clear:

Article 21 from the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 reads: "That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."

One of the key points of the Magna Carta was "The right to due process which led to Trial by Jury". The Magna Carta is the first document I know of where the absolute ruling monarch was brought under the law.

Let's not forget that the Magna Carta was signed by King John in 1215, while the Americas were not discovered until 1492. The USA did not appear with new laws and morals from nowhere. The ideas were being expressed in England and across Europe for long before the War of Independence. It is the advantage of a new country that one can cheery pick the best ideas from where ever they have sprung. France did much the same after its revolution, at least to my English eyes. Ideas that were well know within the Palace of Versailles.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"The entire US system was originally designed to protect the little guy"
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 03:30 PM EDT
Intents are very nice, but results are more important.
For example, if the government wants to confiscate the little
guy's land, under Eminent Domain, so a rich guy will make a
better use of it, then the courts say, loud and clear, "YES!".
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

The Founding Fathers may had different ideas when they wrote
the Fifth, but the Supreme Court is there to protect the rich
developer from the little property owner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle and Google File Appeals ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
Voting in judges, therefore, is probably the very last way you want to put them into office, frankly, as retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been trying to tell the country for a couple of years now.
She is right you know. Why you never know when the great unwashed without the advantage of finely honed gnostic tortuous legal logic may have to relay upon common sense to sort an issue out or elect a good man or woman into office. Why those dunces never have could seen the eligibly of mathematics under the penumbra of patent law. And imagine how boring our lives would be if "is" just meant "is."

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Offtopic: site support
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT
Any idea when new users can be created again?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle and Google File Appeals ~pj
Authored by: yacc on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 11:47 PM EDT
Divided 4-4 rulings don't have the same impact as true majority decisions as
they don't set a nationwide precedent.

Meaning that is has been only already decided for Omega watches, probably not
even other watches.

[ 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 )