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
I have a bad feeling already... | 275 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I have a bad feeling already...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 12:25 AM EDT
The judge has left the jury with a ridiculous decision to make.

He has essentially told them that SSO was copied and is copyrightable. But ...
names are not copyrightable, nor are purely functional elements. If you take the
names and purely functional elements out of the SSO, there is nothing left! What
is the jury supposed to rule on? I'd hate to be on that jury.

He is essentially asking the jury to rule on facts about the empty set. Logical
statements about the empty set can be tricky. Did google copy the empty set.
Well yes because each element of this empty set was copied. Also no because each
element of the empty set was not copied. Was the copying de minimus? Hmmm (gets
out calculator) zero divided by zero equals ...?

See what I mean! A logical nightmare!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I have a bad feeling already...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 01:38 AM EDT
I sincerely hope you are correct. My point was that if the jury goes Google's
way, then the judge will probably not make that call.

Do we really want Oracle to have a second bite of the cherry against someone
without the resources to mount a strong argument, a judge less technically savvy
as this one, and with Oracle having an opportunity to learn from their mistakes
to put up a stronger argument?

[ 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 )