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 must lose on the manuals | 63 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
corrections thread
Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT
post corrections here

[ Reply to This | # ]

newspicks thread
Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT
newspicks thread here

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:13 AM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcribing
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT
Thank you for your support

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tweets from the courtroom
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast

Caleb Garling @CalebGarling
Waiting Game. Looks like the jury won't deliberate until 4 today (Alsup offered the idea) but will go until 1. Unless they reach a decision

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle must lose on the manuals
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT
Under the virtual identity test, and with the following instructions:
Similarly, for the purposes of Question No. 2 in the Special Verdict Form, the “work as a whole” means the contents (including name, declaration and English-language comments) of the documentation for all of the 166 API packages (not just the 37) in the registered work.
It looks like it would be impossible for a jury that understood the issues to rule for infringement. Am I missing something? If it's that straightforward why is it even before a jury, the facts are already clear and apparently agreed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have the winning argument for a juror!
Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT
Fellow jurors,
if we rule in favour of Oracle either in the Copyright phase or the Patent
phase, we have to sit here for more weeks on the Damages phase, whilst our
bosses are getting more and more upset at the time we take off work.

But if we rule in favour of Google on each of the first two stages, we get to
skip a third of the trial. All those voting for? It's Unanimous then!

:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle seems worried jurors will consider use of Apache APIs as a justification.
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 01:34 PM EDT
BrandonBailey ‏ @BrandonBailey

Oracle seems worried jurors will consider use of Apache APIs as a justification.
Google wants them to consider it wasn't copied directly

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

1-b ...
Authored by: webster on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
.

... was not decided. Google has moved for a mistrial on 1-a. Some jurors
thought it was fair use. If the Judge doesn't hold that API's are not
copyrightable, Google should ask the Judge to stay the judgment while they try
"fair use" again. They can't appeal it until it is all final. It is
the kind of issue that may never be unanimous. They can have an annual trial as
a monument to our legal system. Maybe some year we will have a good API
analogy.

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )