Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj | 360 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Day 2, Patent Phase, Oracle v. Google Trial -- The Most Holy Patents ~pj

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:36 AM EDT

I would guess for the same reason that the jury had to decide with the
hypothesis of APIs being copyrighted - as the patent has not yet been fully
discredited with no appeal, the judge is ensuring that all continginces are met:
if fully discredited, jury decision is moot; if by some amazing chance it
survives, then another jury would not need to be called.

I wonder that if I was a juror and '104 is totally discredited what would the
chance of success in suing Oracle for compensation for wilful negligence in
wasting my time (and the court's) as they were unwilling to wait for the USPTO
to give its final verdict on the re-exam which had already almost totally
discredited the '104 when they went to court. There's at least the stress of the
complications of the trial along with possible loss of earnings (and my time
lost to my employer.)/forced holiday taking.

[ 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 )