|
|
|
| Authored by: Ed L. on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
| If I could possibly have put it better myself, I would have. I think you are
particularly spot-on the prejudice-before-damages phase bit. Judge rules now on
the copyrightability issue, there is just too much risk the jury learning of it
before returning a verdict on patents.
Besides which, why is a decision on
API/SSO copyrightability necessary now at all? Doesn't that impact only upon
Question 1? Assuming the judge grants Google's motion for mistrial on the
entirety of Question 1, then API/SSO copyrightability won't enter into damages
for this trial at all.
Yeah. No rush.
---
Real Programmers mangle
their own memory. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Mistrial - Authored by: jbb on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 10:48 PM EDT
- Mistrial - Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:43 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: IANALitj on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 10:41 PM EDT |
One minor quibble. You say, "If it gets appealed to and heard by the
Supreme Court it may well become the law of the land. I see no reason why Judge
Alsup should rush it."
It is possible, but unlikely in the extreme, that Judge Alsup's decision would
be taken up directly by the Supreme Court. It is far more likely that there
will be an appeal to an intermediate appellate court. That court's decision
could then be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Of course, both higher courts
would have Judge Alsup's opinion available, but that is not what the Supreme
Court would be reviewing. They would be reviewing the affirmance or rejection
by the intermediate appellate court.
(That the Supreme Court's review would not be called an appeal is an utter
technicality. See the Wikipedia article "Certiorari." Appeals to the
Supreme Court do exist, but are rare.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
