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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Jury can't reach verdict in Google, Oracle case after 20 hours of deliberation | 81 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT
Please list the mistake in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT
For all posts that are not on topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 10:07 AM EDT
Please mention the story name in the title of the top post. A
link to the story is also helpful.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 10:09 AM EDT
Please post all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ.
Please post the html as plain text to make copying easier.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Robert Van Nest, Google's lead attorney, said he'd like the jurors to have a break...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 10:28 AM EDT
Quote:

Robert Van Nest, Google's lead attorney, said he'd like the
jurors to have a break after rendering a copyright verdict.
Certainly a reasonable idea considering they sat attentively
through 10 days of evidence, a day of closing arguments and
are now in deliberations.

Alsup said if the jury reaches a verdict close to the end of
the day, everyone can go home until the next morning. But if
the verdict comes in in the morning hours, it'll be time to
roll.

http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/05/in-alsups-
court-the-lawyers-never-rest-and-neither-does-anyone-
else.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

TX 610.1
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT
Yes, that's a license for the JDK.
And the point is that the JRE has a different license, but still contains the
APIs and their implementation (and the SSO off course, as the SSO is given by
the fully qualified names of the classes).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fair use would be the worst case outcome
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT
I hope that if the jury finds infringement, they do NOT find fair use. A finding
of infringement+fair use would be nice for Google but would have all the other
negative consequences for the rest of the industry. Judge Alsup has
unfortunately said that if the outcome is infringement+fair use he will not rule
on the copyrightability of APIs. That means that while Google is off the hook
for the rest of the world it would be the following precedent:

* independent implementation of 37 out of 166 APIs is copyright infringement

Since fair use is a very fuzzy and ad hoc thing the fair use ruling is
completely specific to this case and Google. No one else can rely on it. For
instance someone who uses ALL of Apache Harmony (rather than just 37 APIs), or
someone who uses GNU classpath, would fall squarely out of the scope of Google's
fair use defense and would find himself as a copyright infringer courtesy of
this lawsuit's precedent. While the chance remains that APIs are not
copyrightable and a judge would find so, few will have the courage to fight the
uphill battle to this end.

IOW, a ruling of infringement+fair use would mean that Google slips out of
Oracle's fingers but they can simply go to the next target. This may even be
handset manufacturers using Android. Again, Google's fair use defense is
inapplicable to HTC or Samsung because while Google only profits indirectly from
Android, HTC actually sells infringing products. And who is to say that the
jury's fair use finding did not hinge on this factor?

The industry NEEDS a ruling that APIs cannot be copyrighted. A ruling of
infringement+fair use would be terrible because it would take Google's
motivation away to fight for this ruling.

It would be much better if the jury found infringement and no fair use because
then Judge Alsup (and possibly the appeals court) would decide the API
copyrightability issue once and for all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tweets from the courtroom
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast

- --
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 | # ]

Deadlock and mistrial?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 11:04 AM EDT
The longer the jury stays out, the more likely I can see them becoming
deadlocked on at least some aspect of the case. Heck, after two weeks of this
and the prospect of another four weeks of trial, I might try to deadlock the
case just so I could stop participating in the case.

How do deadlocks work with multiple related questions for the jury to resolve?
Certainly on criminal cases, there can be deadlocks on some counts but not
others, but I'm not sure how that works for multipart civil trials, especially
with damages to be argued later. Continuing the trial with the same
personalities could be difficult if they deadlocked on some part questions
during the first part of the trial.

If there were to be a deadlock and mistrial, would that allow Oracle to bring
back the patent that they withdrew with prejudice if not resolved before the
start of the trial?

What if they only deadlock on the SSO, could the judge make a statement of law
and allow the trial proceed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

May the Schwartz be with you
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT
If Oracle can try to being back what by law should be dead and gone. Why can't
Google bring up the possible of perjury on the Sun 2008 10-k?

As Jonathan Schwartz will be coming back,can the Sun 2008 10K be brought up
then?

[ Reply to This | # ]

rant/
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT
For goodness sake, Oracle, it does not matter for the copyright case what the licence conditions are for the JAVA 2 PLATFORM STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPMENT KIT 5.0 Specification license. If Harmony had downloaded all the JDK API implementation code then they could not have claimed clean room conditions for their own implementation.

Before you spoliated the Sun website giving a bundle of documents that could be construed, if separately registered, as the Java SE V5 API Specification compilation you should have recorded the licence terms that Harmony *might* have used to implement the Java SE V5 API Specification. It included all the terms for third party implementation of the Java SE V5 API Specification.

Personally, I don't think the non-mobile terms ever appeared in the licence you gave to Harmony otherwise they would not have joined the JCP and wasted all that development resource on your product. You might do the world a favour and show us the terms you actually offered to entice Harmony into entering your web of lies.

And, are you seriously suggesting that Harmony had to click on thousands upon thousands of html links and save it all out as a single document for their development teams? For goodness sake, give us both the original document and the licence terms you actually gave Harmony and the JCP instead of all this after-the-event, rewriting-history nonsense. The JAVA 2 PLATFORM STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPMENT KIT 5.0 does NOT INCLUDE A LICENCE FOR THIRD PARTY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE Java API Specification. It is a development kit for development people. The clue is IN THE NAME.

Never mind, you haven't wasted your time. You need to produce that licence for Google. It will destroy your entire case for patent infringement. I've told you that often enough. Do I HAVE TO SHOUT?

/rant

if separately registeredp

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where are the questions asked by the Jury?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT
The questions are mentioned in this post as a given, but I couldn't find them.
Can someone please point me to the questions?

And maybe it would be a good idea to have a post about them so they are easier
to find as they get updated.

Thanks for everything!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury can't reach verdict in Google, Oracle case after 20 hours of deliberation
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT

Interesting that the jury is deadlocked. You'd think if Oracle's case was weak
they'd be able to find for Google.

http://www.mobileburn.com/19457/news/jury-cant-reach-verdict-in-google-oracle-ca
se-after-20-hours-of-deliberation

[ 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 )