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

a tricky tapdance, for Google | 225 comments | Create New Account

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

To me that sums it up.

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT

That would pretty much sum up a good solid defense. It's probably good for Oracle I'm not a member of the Jury.

Given my penchant for "software should not be patentable subject matter", I'd have felt it a responsibility to say that during the "interview" and been removed as a potential Jury member anyway.

Caveat: "should not" only because I recognize the Supreme's have left the door open that "there may be, in some particular situation, a valid reason for having a particular software patentable".

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

a tricky tapdance, for Google

Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT

The SCOTUS declaring software patents invalid would be a blessing to Google, and
the rest of us, but Google taking a public stance right now might not be in
their best interest. Google has built up a good defensive arsenal of patents,
and they don't want to pull the equivalent of applying last night's beer to the
gunpowder they'll need for a fight. They're probably better off staying the
course until MS, Apple, Oracle, etc. get sick of losing battles and start waving
white flags.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not so - Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 05:39 AM EDT
- Still a tricky dance - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 08:28 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 )