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
BIG win for Google | 394 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Who is the judge ruling for in the cleanroom issue?
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:54 PM EDT
That's what it looks like to me, but really, we simply don't
have enough to go on.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

BIG win for Google
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:56 PM EDT
Judge: Cleanroom is like creative writing. That theory is out the window. That's my judgment.
In my very biased opinion this is a win for Google. Oracle was claiming that Google's cleanroom implementation violated Oracle's API copyrights because Google was using the ideas from the APIs to create their implementation. The analogy Oracle used was like suing a Hollywood company for using your plotline in a movie without paying you. That's the creative writing analogy the judge just tossed out.

This is significant because it reduces the worst-case size of the infringement by several orders of magnitude. The implementation is probably at least 100 times bigger than the APIs. This is a good sign. As the judge catches on to what is really going on, he tosses out more of Oracle's case.

I also now like the fact that he is letting the jury assume that the SSO can be copyrighted. He even mentioned that it will help if there is an appeal. My apologizes for not understanding this longer range strategy before.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Reading this as good for Google
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT
Judge: I do not have in there that the implementation (compiled code)

Judge: Classic case of an attempt to copyright an idea.

Judge: Cleanroom is like creative writing. That theory is out the window. That's
my judgement.

Those three notes, I read as Judge Alsup has gotten an even
better picture in his mind about the API, code, and
implementation, and realizes that the implementation
is compiled code, which can come from a cleanroom.

He now realizes that one of the Oracle arguments is that
they are trying to assert that no one can do clean room
implementations, that they want to assert copyright control
over someones clean room implementation, and that a clean
room implementation is like creative writing, and no one
can prevent someone else from doing creative writing.

As I see it, he shot down one of the Boies boyz gambits.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ 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 )