|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
...But Boies did. And he blew it.
This isn't a faux pas or a minor mistake. It is a MAJOR
disaster and it displays the incompetence of the BSF legal
team.
If I were Larry Ellison, I would be seriously thinking about
dumping BSF for utter incompetence.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Doghouse on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
That's not formal agreement; it's informal failure to disagree, which is
somewhat different. Now Google have asked him to consider the matter in detail
and rule.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT |
“but I can't tell you it's illegal as a matter of law. It could be”
When I first read this statement on groklaw, I did wonder if this could have
been the judge signalling to someone else in the court(namely Google's team)
that they could state “it's illegal as a matter of law”. A little bit like when
Mr Incredible is working as a insurance claims adviser and advertently letting
slip how the lady could get her claim resolved.
Then when Google filed as a matter of law on this issue, I assumed this was what
the judge was hoping for to streamline things(or at least that is how it seems
to me as some unknowledgeable of the law).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
Judge: I said, you can make your pitch to the jury. This is being
sprung on me... if you want to say to the jury that you're asking for hundreds
of millions of dollars for nine lines of code, you can do that if you want. I'm
not going to blurt out some ruling now. I took back what I said yesterday: if
you want to make out a case for infringer's profits based on nine lines of code
and seven files that aren't even part of the Android system, well, that's an
extremely weak proposition, but I can't tell you it's illegal as a matter of
law. It could be I'd be surprised by some statement in a decision
somewhere.
Google: I don't think you'll be a bit surprised, Your
Honor.
Judge: Well, then you can brief it for me. But in the meantime,
we're going to have phase 3.
I don't know why Google have not
cited the decisions that show it is not permitted by either the law or due
process. Perhaps they decided that it is such a slam dunk that they do not gain
any profits from test files that are never used and an error check that confirms
the program that is trying to run is guaranteed not to generate revenue because
it is busted!---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:58 AM EDT |
Judge Alsup: if you want to make out a case for infringer's
profits... I can't tell you it's illegal as a matter of law.
The
Judge is saying that making out a case for infringer's profits is not illegal as
a matter of law. The case law says that "making out a case" necessarily requires
the plantiff to establish "a causal connection between the
infringement and the gross revenue reasonably associated with the
infringement.” Id. at 715 (citing On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152,
160 (2d Cir. 2001))
Oracle has not made any attempt to establish this causal
connection, or presented any evidence for such a connection, therefore Google is
entitled to judgement as a matter of law.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
Who is going to license Java (at a cost of around $15 per device) if they can
use Googles Java implementation (under ASL) at limited cost?
No one. Oracle will suffer enormous damages if Google wins. Indeed they're about
to lose a fair amount in annual license fees when Research In Motion launches
its next OS with no Java VM (except piggy backed from Android). RIM actually
dropped the existing JVM on the QNX OS.
If all that prevents a vendor using Dalvik is one file, then that one file
creates enormous damages to Oracle.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
