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
Reasonable jury | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Reasonable jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 01:13 AM EDT

>You are wrong PJ, there is no evidence at all that this judge is anything but a word-game playing moron just like all other judges and lawyers.

I think you misunderstand the underlying motive and his reasoning. Judge Alsup has already said that he feels that Oracle is going the wrong way with damages and won't see anything like what they're looking for since they have no credible way of computing damages and that he will instruct the jury as such. Hence by giving Oracle want they asked for in their motion it gives them one less reason to win on appeal. The jury have already said it's fair use so now the same jury is likely going to give them squat on damages.

The hon judge didn't make up the "no reasonable jury" crap, that was Oracle. He just went along since he does not think it will make any difference and if anything will allow Google to stop Oracle in their tracks with an appeal. If Google wins the appeal it will likely mean that it's just less money that Oracle gets and likely no retrial.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

He is clearly not a moron...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 01:35 AM EDT

...and to say such is disrespectful. However, I understand your disappointment. The thing is, he has been put into an untenable position. The problem is the "system", not the judge, who is doing the very best he can.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Reasonable jury, but mistaken about a point?
Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 07:09 AM EDT
My IANAL guess at what happened is something like this:

Oracle never explicitly made the point that copying the output of a decompiler
that was applied to the object code output of a compiler that had input the
source code files is legally equivalent to copying the original source code.

Google may have noticed Oracle's mistake but did not help them out. Judge Alsup
did not notice or didn't think to instruct the jury on the matter.

The jury saw question 3b, asking if Google's conceded use "of the source
code" in the files was infringing. As far as they knew, the conceded use of
the seven files was only to decompile the object code. There was no use made of
the source code, therefore the answer was "no". Google won that one
because of Oracle's mistake.

Oracle managed to save that error via a Rule 50(a) motion. Once the evidence had
been presented and Google conceded what they did, any "reasonable
jury" would have found that Google's conceded use of the files was
infringing.

It not occurring to Judge Alsup that there is any question that copying
decompiled output is not the same as copying source, he found the jury's
"no" answer unreasonable given the evidence as presented during the
trial, and he overturned it.

I think that the jury never being told that copying decompiler output can be
called an infringing use of source code explains both the jury decision and the
subsequent granting of the Rule 50(a) motion.

[ 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 )