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
whoops | 394 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
whoops
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT
I'm not sure that it means that the documents aren't copyrighted, but that the
registration was wrong, or that Oracle didn't prove ownership of all 37 APIs
(I'm still not quite sure which of those possibilities Google was arguing). If
it's a registration problem, presumably Oracle could reregister, but it's too
late for this case, and likely any derivative works. If it's that Oracle didn't
prove their ownership to match the registration, the judge may open Oracle's
case to allow them to bring such proof, which is what I read out of the judge
not wanting to leave this issue in the weeds. In either case, it's certainly a
bad case of lawyering on Oracle's side to have not known how the works were
registered and to proceed accordingly.

Perhaps Oracle will have cause for malpractice.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT
  • Not know? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:05 PM EDT
  • whoops - Authored by: jvillain on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT
    • whoops - Authored by: eachus on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT
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 )