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
Rule 50 - Kneeing | 166 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
When are we going to hear anything about Google's Rule-50 motion?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT
Honestly, I don't think it's an error. Rather part of their strategy.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google's Rule-50 motion pending?
Authored by: hardmath on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 02:15 PM EDT
While we haven't yet seen a ruling from Judge Alsup on Google's motion, we have
seen a flurry of related activity.

Oracle has withdrawn its claim that the Java copyrights were registered as a
"collective work". To be sure this checkbox was not checked on the
registration form, but Oracle now says they never "relied" on that
characterization. Oracle was allowed to reopen their case-in-chief to present
evidence on copyright registration, though it didn't go smoothly.

I suspect much of Google's Rule 50 motion have been addressed with adjustment of
the "work as a whole" definition proposed for jury instructions and
verdict form.

Recall that Oracle wanted and expected to have the "work as a whole"
tailored to the specific accused APIs. Thus any fair use defense by Google
would have been weakened by defining the "whole" in as narrow a
fashion as possible.

As a by-product of the evidence (or lack of evidence) as to what Oracle actually
registered (the empty CDROM), Judge Alsup has given Google permission to argue
that Oracle has failed to prove registration.

regards, hm


---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Rule 50 - Kneeing
Authored by: JimDiGriz on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26342

Rule 50 - Kneeing

50.1 Kneeing - Kneeing is the act of a player leading with his knee and in some
cases extending his leg outwards to make contact with his opponent.

50.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty,
based on the severity of the infraction, to a player guilty of kneeing an
opponent.

50.3 Major Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty,
based on the severity of the infraction, to a player guilty of kneeing an
opponent (see 50.5).

50.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty
if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his
opponent by kneeing.

50.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a player has been assessed a major penalty
for kneeing he shall also be assessed a Game Misconduct.

50.6 Fines and Suspensions - There are no specified fines or suspensions for
kneeing, however, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at
his discretion (refer to Rule 28)

So Oracle just got kneed by Google?

JdG

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

And then there is the BS&F history with evidence
Authored by: mexaly on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT
The blank disk is something that someone else than BS&F might get away with.
Sorry, wrong lawyers.

---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

both before and after the jury verdict
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT
at a guess

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

When are we going to hear anything about Google's Rule-50 motion?
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 03:32 PM EDT

If it is a blank disk doesn't that violate the copyright on John Cage's 4'33"

---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The judge wants the jury verdict first
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 06:52 PM EDT
If the Jury decides that Oracle don't have a valid (c) claim then Oracle can
appeal all they like but it won't waste any more of THIS courts time.

I imagine all the other blockers will be in the final report from the bench i.e.
even if the Jury decides that Oracle has valid (c) they actually don't because

a) Oracle registered the (c) on a blank disk and can't collect damages because
they can't identify the (c) work
b) Even if the disk hadn't been blank the (c) was on the compilation not the
components
c) Latches
d) Equitable estoppal

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Copyrighted all bits patterns at all lengths less than max CD
Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:13 AM EDT
All bit patterns that can fit on a CDROM were copyrighted by copyrighting a
blank CDROM (that would be a Classic Boise™ legal theory).

[ 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 )