|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT |
Yes, Google will appeal this, for two reasons:
1. As you suggested, that the
jury found it did not infringe, but the judge found the jury was not
reasonable.
2. "Moreover, our court of appeals has held that it is the
amount of copying as compared to plaintiff’s work that matters for the de
minimis inquiry, not how the accused infringer used the copied work. Newton v.
Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004)."
Google will appeal this
based on the plaintiff's work to be compared should not be individual files, but
the proper work as a whole.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 08:44 PM EDT |
What I think is very dangerous for Oracle is that the same jury will decide on
damages for the infringement. If I were on the jury and I was told that my
'decision (of non-infringement) is being ignored, now decide how much to punish
the defendant' you can bet that the number coming back will be the minimum
allowed by law. It might even spill over into the other items if the jury feels
like they are being made to waste their time. Another factor I'm wondering
about is if the Judge rules that SSO is not copyright-able will the Jury be told
prior to damages? If not wouldn't it be prejudicial to Google?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: knala on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
| But Oracle will not have grounds to appeal based on this.... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
From the report of Judge Alsup's statement: I'm granting Rule
50 for Oracle on the seven decompiled files. The instructions I gave have only
one possible answer: yes. I thought you were supposed to
tell the jury to return a directed verdict, not sneak up on them with
it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
And yet the judge refused to declare that no reasonable jury could find 9 lines
out of 900 anything other than de minimus. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: symbolset on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. In suits at common law, where
the
value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury
shall
be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined
in
any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common
law.
How does the judge get around this? The time for the judge to settle
this
was before putting it to the jury. I should think this is a slam dunk
appeal. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
