decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
All precedent up until now says APIs aren't copyrightable. | 503 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
But the mistrial shouldn't be granted
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:36 PM EDT
Oracle made their own bed, first trying to bamboozle the judge, then the jury.

If they had come out and explained it properly, the judge probably would have
decided a long time ago.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Alsup Will Decide if API's are still not Copyrightable ~pj
Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT

APIs aren't clips of code one can invoke. That would be the implementation behind an API. The API is the description of exactly how the calling program can invoke the clips of code. It's the difference between a telephone and a telephone number: the telephone is what rings and what the callee can pick up and use to talk to me, the telephone number OTOH is the string I can dial to call that telephone. The telephone itself can be a basic single-line handset, a multi-line business phone, a line in a large PBX system, a cel phone, or even a computer program (think Google Voice). There are a myriad of implementations of a telephone, yet still one single phone number I can use to call it without knowing or caring exactly what implementation it is.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

...they don't know what the judge will decide ...
Authored by: mtew on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 11:11 PM EDT
I suspect that they have some pretty strong opinions on what outcome is likely.
They just don't like those odds.

Webster: IIRC you are a lawyer. What basis would they have for a mistrial
motion?

---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

All precedent up until now says APIs aren't copyrightable.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 03:50 AM EDT
I don't think an appeal on the basis of mistrial will stick.
All precedent up until now says APIs aren't copyrightable. In
arguing that APIs are copyrightable, Oracle is trying to
invent a new legal concept which is completely in
contradiction with all prior case law.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I don't see how it follows that Oracle should ask for a mistrial
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT


It was Oracle that stated there was a question of fact.

It was Oracle that stated there there is no supporting case law for their
position.

They got the trial they asked for.

How does them stretching established legal definition, getting what they want,
and then being told

"Thanks for presenting your evidence, as a matter of law, these bit gets
thrown out, and the Jury gets to decide whether they copied the book, after
you've taken out the unprotected bits of the book. All else is admitted, now
let's do damages"

Please explain how this results in prejudice?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Alsup Will Decide if API's are still not Copyrightable ~pj
Authored by: awkScooby on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 12:51 PM EDT
Could he avoid a mistrial by telling the jury that he will decide this
particular issue as a matter of law, but not telling the jury what his decision
is until the jury has decided the remaining issues? The jury then could decide
if the 9 lines of code belong to Oracle, and if so, if their use constitutes
fair use.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

does it really have to hurt their credibility?
Authored by: xtifr on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT

Since they have been listening to this API-"design" mumbo-jumbo, Oracle can argue that the issue's disappearance hurts their credibility.
Does it really? If the judge says, "after seeing all the evidence and hearing all the arguments and all the testimony, I have concluded that the question of the APIs being infringed can be decided as a matter of law, rather than a question of fact, so you will not be required to rule on this question."

As a juror, I think my main feeling on hearing that would be relief! :)

But both sides are presenting evidence, argument, and testimony on the question, so I don't see how I could be accused of feeling any prejudice towards either side, simply because all that material presented by both sides eventually turned out to be irrelevant to any decision I might have to make. I might feel a little peeved at the judge for making me sit through all that, but prejudice towards Oracle or Google? I don't see it.

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

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is part A
Authored by: argee on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 09:33 PM EDT
This is part A of the trial. If Oracle asks for a mistrial,
the entire trial; ie, parts A, B, C go down with it. How
long before Judge Alsup, or another judge, will be able to
set up a new trial?

And they can't move venue. A mistrial is not cancellation,
it is rather an all new trial, with an all new Jury, etc.

So the trial is on, in this venue, either now, or later.
Later=most likely after USPTO rules on everything and all
the motions are settled. My estimate is mid 2014.

What Oracle ought to do, if they are allowed to, is to
allow for dismissal without prejudice. They can then
continue to threaten, and file for a new trial with all
different and better patents, copyright allegations (if
any) etc.


---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )