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
Does the judge have to rule on the Rule 50 motion? | 394 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Reserving on the issue of SSO copyrightability
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT
I think the judge has shown his cards on this one.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Reserving on the issue of SSO copyrightability
Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT
I'm guessing you are right. If Judge Alsup determines SSO/API are not protectable by copyright as matter of law, and the appeals court disagrees and says "no, such copyrightability is matter for finder of fact" and remands, they can all save their car fare.

---
Real Programmers mangle their own memory.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So, it's good for Google, right?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:16 AM EDT
That gives Google two outs, doesn't it? If I understand you, even if the jury
finds infringement, he can overrule them. But if the jury finds no
infringement, he has nothing to rule on.

Which means it's bad for Oracle, because Google can convince either of them,
while Oracle must convince both.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Does the judge have to rule on the Rule 50 motion?
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT
I suppose that he can just declare the motion moot, if the jury find no
infringement in the APIs.

Oh, wasn't Timsort called by the Oracle APIs? That does seem to mean that there
was de minimus infringement of 9 lines and so the Rule 50 motion is unlikely to
be mooted.

If I find that Google droned on at length about timsort just to put bait in my
patented better mousetrap... well, they just better hadn't!

They wouldn't look that far ahead, would they?

That would be a 'yes', then.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )