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
Day 8 Filing Teeth; Google Specifies what must be the Limits of Oracle's Copyright Claims | 238 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle v. Google - Day 8 Filings; Google (Potentially) Blows the Door Off Oracle's Copyright Claims
Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT
I guess that a good number of other US Software companies will be talking
earnestly to their lawyers about the possible implications of this case to them.


As has been said, Oracle can't have it both ways despite their repeated attempts
to do so.

I guess that the Judge is not best impressed with Oracle over their attempts to
bring back the '720 patent even though it was dismissed with predjuice. Surely
even a fresh law grad knows that something 'dismissed with predjuice' can't be
brought back to life unless there has been something in the order of a 9.0 level
earthquake.

(in view of the location of the case, I hope that I am not tempting fate
here...)


---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think he won't let the jury know until phase one is over.
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT
Judge: Reserving on the issue of whether SSO is a copyrightable issue. That way, it would be easy for the court of appeals to reverse without a new trial.
On the other hand, telling the jury that the two-faced plaintiff has made a complete mess up of the whole issue, but not to let it bias them in any way would be immensely satisfying!

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

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Day 8 Filing Teeth; Google Specifies what must be the Limits of Oracle's Copyright Claims
Authored by: webster on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT
.

-------------"Is there any possibility the Judge could / would hold
judgement on this to allow the jury to return a verdict, and then pull this out
if necessary? Or is this an issue that has to be resolved straight
away?"----------

He has to instruct the jury correctly. If the basis of the claim is the
copyright registration, he will instruct the jury accordingly.

[Did all the lawyers miss this? Did Oracle know and try and slide it by? Did
Google know, trap, and wait to pounce? This is better than any mystery.]

.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Day 8 Filings; Google (Potentially) Blows the Door Off Oracle's Copyright Claims
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:15 AM EDT
As the judge said, it wouldn't be fair to
leave this out in the weeds. It's a Rule
50 motion, so he has to rule.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge can't send this to the jury
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT

I just read GOOGLE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON SECTIONS OF COUNT VIII OF ORACLE’S AMENDED COMPLAINT twice. (Document 984) There is just nothing remaining for the jury to decide until and unless the judge makes a ruling denying Google's motion. Goggle has such powerful arguments in so many ways it just wouldn't make any sense for the jury to continue.

What is happening in the court room right now, as I speak? There must have been a tweet by someone?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Day 8 Filings; Google (Potentially) Blows the Door Off Oracle's Copyright Claims
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
Indeed, as noted by others this has to be ruled on pretty much right away, as it
goes to the heart of Google's de minimus claims. Note how the judge is unhappy
Google's even trying to bring in de minimus as a defense when the entire work
asserted by Oracle as infringed has been copied wrt SSO (which will be
considered as copyrightable when evaluating fair use defense); elsewhere,
though, he complains (I think it was regarding the whole timsort/rangecheck
issue? Not sure.) about Oracle basically trying to arbitrarily subdivide the
copyright claim in order to defeat de minimus by claiming whatever is asserted
at the moment was subject to 100% copying. If Oracle can *ONLY* claim that the
copyright of Java as a whole was violated, then at a minimum de minimus is
arguably back in play because only 37 of the Java API packages have had their
SSO copied. That's not even getting into the question of whether Oracle has met
relevant burden of proof to ownership of SSO on the relevant portion of Java...

[ 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 )