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
the confounding thing... | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
the confounding thing...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 05:39 AM EDT
.. is not necessarily that Boies is shooting for infringers profits (he said he
is not interested in the actual damages portion)

It is the fact that this whole case is basically a shakedown that is
confounding.


It is also that Boies already stated he only wanted statutory damages and that
is how the case has been presented and dealt with.

He has than been allowed to do an about face, Again.

It is not a compilation.
It is a compilation
Oh no wait, it's not a compilation for that bit.

The whole work is everything
The whole work is this extra special subset, ignore the bits we don't want
included.
The whole work is just exactly that one file from tens of thousands.
The whole work is just those 9 lines of code.

It's Java vs android
Its the APIs
It's the software
it's the documents
It's the SSO of the document that you can see in the APIs which is in the source
code which is the documents which is what they copied when they copied what they
copied when they were reading the source code that they didn't look at when they
wrote their own software while reading our book which they didn't copy when they
copied our SSO.




&c

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

rangeCheck - vast amounts of prior art
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 05:39 AM EDT
Your post and explanation was fantastic and very clear. I am just amazed,
dismayed and astounded that ANYONE whether Oracle or not could lay claim to
something that is:

1) A code pattern that has existed in the public domain for decades.
2) A code pattern that is difficult to code in any other way - other than (say)
rearranging the order of the 3 x if statements.
3) Something that is clearly so simple that ANYONE could come up with the same
code - whether they had seen Oracle's (or should I say that community's - since
the code is GPL) code or not.

I have total respect for your post - no offence in any way intended.

---
Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced software like Linux and LibreOffice
instead of proprietary software like Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X

[ 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 )