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
Oracle's Dilemma | 238 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle's Dilemma
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT
> they presented no evidence of
ownership of any of the 37 individual whole works.

That's the point that I think is being oversold here on
Groklaw. Over several days of testimony, nobody from Sun's
side ever said "we wrote the Java API spec"??? On the
contrary, there were books submitted into evidence
describing the spec - Sun employees wrote at least one of
those books.

Remember, registration is not needed to show ownership. All
Oracle had to do was *state* "we wrote that" at some point.
It's possible they forgot to do it, maybe because Google had
said they weren't going to contest the point. (I'm pretty
sure it was *not* one of Google's admissions, though.) But
I'd be very surprised if they can't point to *something*
that one of their witnesses said.

Actually, on further reflection, this is a harder problem
for Oracle than I assumed. Oracle would have hearsay
problems unless they put the actual coders on the stand
(which I don't think they did). So maybe they *did* forget
to introduce any evidence of ownership besides the
registrations. If so, bravo to Van Nest for noticing.

And yes, this is still a good move by Van Nest just in terms
of forcing Oracle to pick a theory of infringement and a
definition of "the work" that they will have to stick to
during damages calculations and fair use arguments.

[ 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 )