|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
I'd be agog if Oracle wasn't given a chance to bring evidence of
authorship.
Whether the means to do so is mistrial, or a delay while both sides
prepare
evidence and depose, or a whittling of the apis in questions via
Google's
stipulation as to Oracle's authorship in whole or in part, or, perhaps,
dismissal of the copyright claim without prejudice and allow Oracle to replead
correctly. Maybe Oracle and Google have a heart-to-heart over the weekend
and
Google gives
Oracle some money, though hardly the beeee-lyuns
claimed. But I
really see that if Google may legitimately say that they
didn't anticipate this in
the pre-trial stage, then Oracle may not be punished
for also not anticipating
this issue. As I think about it, I could be
wrong. Maybe it does cheese
off the Judge that Oracle got the law wrong in its
filing on Monday. I do get the
feeling that the Judge thinks there is a nugget
of merit in Oracle's claim, but
gets irritated as BSF flails around adding in
kitchen sinks to no purpose other
than confusing the judge and jury. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jvillain on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
WOW that 984 document is amazing.
Oracles strongest offence/defence seems to be Los Angeles Times v. Free
Republic. Where the individual articles in a news paper were deemed to be
protectable as individual articles.
My question though is whether or not the LA Times did a copyright registration
on the whole or as a compilation of individual articles. If it was a compilation
did they register the individual owners of the articles? If so then this
argument looses a LOT of validity.
Modern news organizations often use articles from third parties like the
associated press, Reuters etc because news papers can't afford to be every where
so I would assume it would have to be a compilation.
Other than that the Oracles arguments seem to be pretty weak.
BTW, how much validity is there to Googles claim that there was no proof that
what the experts studied was what was copyrighted. To me it would seem to be
devastating but maybe the courts don't see it that way. It would seem to be
another rookie mistake if it could knee cap the case for Oracle.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
"Now as long as Google is careful not to call a witness with direct
knowledge of who is the author of the APIs..."
IIRC Google elicited answers from multiple witnesses that the APIs were authored
by many different entities, and that there was a process for submitting new or
revised APIs.
This trap was VERY well laid. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 03:52 AM EDT |
Google pointed out that, because the copyright registration was not the basis of
protection, Oracle needs an expert report showing copying of the SSO in each of
the copyright media.
I think the time for expert reporting is long gone.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
