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

I think it's actually simpler than that | 286 comments | Create New Account

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

Oracle can easily defeat this motion, and give Google a sure way to appeal.

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT

From an article I read, Oracle is asking that instead of any mistrial both
Oracle and Google let the judge rule on fair use. So, if the Judge rules APIs
not covered by copyright but even if they were, their use in this case would be
covered by fair use, based on Oracle's offer, what is left for them to appeal?
:)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle can easily defeat this motion, and give Google a sure way to appeal. - Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- Oracle can easily defeat this motion, and give Google a sure way to appeal. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT
  - Oracle can easily defeat this motion, and give Google a sure way to appeal. - Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:50 AM EDT
  - Oracle can easily defeat this motion, and give Google a sure way to appeal. - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 03:47 PM EDT
Depends where Oracle said that... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- only exagerating a little - Authored by: IANALitj on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:22 PM EDT

I think it's actually simpler than that

Authored by: pem on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT

Oracle gets nothing on this issue as long as there is any mistrial. The judge
already seems to have said as much.

This just says that any new trial for 1B also has to cover 1A.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

My view exactly: not quite, but very close to "innocent till proven guilty" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:42 PM EDT
- My view exactly: not quite, but very close to "innocent till proven guilty" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT
  - My view exactly: not quite, but very close to "innocent till proven guilty" - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT
  - Rule 48 - Jury - Authored by: darrellb on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:02 PM EDT
    - Interesting.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:04 AM EDT

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 )