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
Small correction, there is an Engine, you just didn't use it | 439 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Good analogy. Oracle clearly trying to deceive jury.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:15 AM EDT
I like this analogy a lot. Whats amazing to me is that the lawyers are allowed
to misrepresent the facts like this. Using this analogy, surely Oracle knows
that they are wrong when they argue that the car with no engine was driving all
over town unlicensed. It is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and should
not be tolerated.

More specifically, Oracle and Mitchell know perfectly well that an index into a
table isn't a symbolic reference. The patent doesn't try to portray this
falsehood, but the Oracle lawyers have no problem trying to twist the facts in
order to deceive the jurors.

Can numbers be symbolic? Yes.
Can indexes into a table be considered symbolic? Maybe.
Does the patent describe either of these scenarios as a symbolic reference?
Absolutely not.

Is Android an example of a running system? Yes.
When the odex file is produced, is the application running? No.
Does the patent describe a running application or a running operating system in
regards to the time when the optimization occurs? It is quite clearly
describing a running the *Application* that is being optimized.

The lawyers and Mitchell know perfectly well that this is the case and yet they
purposely try to deceive the jury. They try to widen a patent's scope
artificially and there must be plenty of legal precedent to fall back on to
fight this off.

The amazing thing is that you'd expect this sort of thing from patent trolls or
even SCO playing with Microsoft's money. I am still shocked that a once
respected company like Oracle would be using these shady tactics knowing
perfectly well that the developers who choose them over Microsoft are the same
ones who they are double crossing in this suit. They must know that they are
abandoning their customers.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

On Weasel Words
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT
I was in a collision that wrecked my motorcycle. I registered
it PNO (planned non-operation) for a reduced fee. When I got
the paperwork back, it said the vehicle could not be "operated,
parked or towed" on a public street unless the full fee was paid.

So maybe they COULD give you a ticket for towing an unregistered
vehicle around. I got to wondering what values of "towed" would
not be permitted. Obviously the old "hoist one end and drag it on
two wheels" is Right Out, but what about a flatbed tow truck that
carries it completely off the road?

I did take a chance, and haul it away inside my van for an insurance
estimate. Might have been illegal, but how would anybody know?
------------------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Small correction, there is an Engine, you just didn't use it
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 06:47 AM EDT

The Dalvik car has an engine. Google says the ignition was off during towing, and the engine was only run while in the garage to charge the battery so the taillights could be powered by the battery to warn other drivers during towing. Oracle says that because the taillights are powered from the battery which was charged by the engine, then the car was technically powered by the engine while being towed.

That is how subtly they twist the words.

[ 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 )