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
setting up to clear the issues for appeal | 134 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
setting up to clear the issues for appeal
Authored by: jmc on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT
I think the answer - IANAL and certainly not a US one, but given that the 7th
Amendment says that a jury has to pronounce, then no appeal panel can decide for
them. They have to go on until they find a jury that can decide something - this
was essentially how SCO won the first appeal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Since the jury's finding of facts on the structural copying (issue 1) is going to be retried"
Authored by: jbb on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Anon asked:
Since the jury's finding of facts on the structural copying (issue 1) is going to be retried, and will since whatever he decides on the copyrightability of the SSO will be appealed anyway, why not just toss all of the legal questions "upstairs" and let this jury rest?
A new trial is far from certain. Several things would have to happen in addition to an appeal in order for there to be a new trial. First, the higher court would have to agree to hear the appeal. For example in SCO v. Novell SCO appealed the decision but the higher court refused to hear the appeal. Next, the higher court would have to actually find some error in what happened in the lower court. It is quite possible for a higher court to agree to hear an appeal and then find that everything was still hunky-dory. Next, the higher court would have to find a problem in the way the jury reached their decision. The higher court might find a flaw in what Judge Alsup did but still be satisfied with the jury's verdict. Finally, the higher court would have to actually remand the decision. For example, if Google loses, they could appeal on multiple grounds. They could ask for a do-over of the trial regarding SSO and also ask for the higher court to rule that APIs cannot be copyrighted as a matter of law. If the higher court rules APIs cannot be copyrighted then there would be no need for a do-over of the SSO portion of the trial.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ 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 )