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
I think the Judge is Confused | 439 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"If the day ever comes when that is established, we’ll have a new trial on that issue."
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT
Does that mean there is a possibility that the Judge will not
decide on the API copyrightability? After all this time?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I can't see this jury would do anything but deadlock on SSO damages
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
If whoever on the jury believed that SSO was fair use, there is no way they will
award damages even if the judge directs them that they should be considered not
to be fair use. I think this is the real reason Oracle wants a different jury.
They detect, rightly so, that someone does not like their arguments, and that
damages won't go their way.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The bigger picture
Authored by: jbb on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT
I think his plan was to have Oracle win on SSO liability and then let the jury decide damages. He would then top it off by ruling that APIs could not be copyrighted. If his ruling got overturned then there would be no need for a new trial. But now, as anonymous says above, it makes no sense to ask a jury to decide on damage amounts when they don't agree that any damaged occurred. It would just be a waste of time regardless of the outcome. If they agreed then the loser would claim that at least one jury was acting irrationally.

I still think Alsup will eventually rule that APIs cannot be copyrighted. If that ruling gets overturned then there will probably need to be a new trial (ugh). It makes sense for that new jury to decide on damage amounts (assuming they decide in favor of Oracle on liability) so absolutely nothing is gained by having this jury look at SSO damages.

---
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 | # ]

I think the Judge is Confused
Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT
No you are confused. The copyrightability of
the APIs is a question of law, not fact. He
can't give it to the jury to decide.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hung jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:10 PM EDT
The jury is hung over damages on the SSO by virtue of them being hung over
whether Google's use is fair use. If Google's use is fair use, then no damages.

? If no damages, then Google's use was fair use? So, there is no ruling that
Google is liable for any infringement of the SSO.

[ 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 )