Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Oracle v. Google | 134 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Oracle v. Google

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 09:33 PM EDT

So with a patent, anyone can claim anything as infringing and it's up to the
defendant to prove otherwise. Fun way to turn the system upside down. Specially
when almost no one in the court will likely have a good idea of what they are
talking about anyways.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google

Authored by: hAckz0r on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT

Yes, and what the defendant needs to prove is a negative. You can't logically prove a negative , so the current system is logically unfair to the defendant. When you can not defend yourself because it is a logical impossibility to do so, then something is very very wrong.

With the current legal system the other side need only to show that 'it looks like that patent was infringed'. To a non-technical jury that bar can be pretty darn low. If the prosecution were instead forced to show the actual lines of code in the infringing product that implement each of the claims found in a software patent then there would be a lot fewer lawsuits.

If they can't point to it for the jury to see those lines of code, and then let the defendant refute that code selection purpose, then the lawsuit is completely prejudicial against the defendant. This should be ruled unconstitutional.

---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible.

[ 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 )