Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Update: One juror is late because she's stuck on the Bay
Bridge with car trouble. (FYI, it's hella foggy outside
today
too.)
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Apparently the juror is driving back home, and she doesn't
like taking BART. (Um, really? I'm starting to lose
sympathy...)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
It's official: the juror is not showing up. But will they
keep her on the jury? Also, which one was it??[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
3 options: Send US Marshall to arrest her; dismiss her & move
on; wait until Wed. Alsup thinks dismissal. Attys agree. I
totally called it![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
Caleb Garling @CalebGarling
We're dismissing late juror and proceeding with closing
arguments....Ouch. Here for a month, and she doesn't get to
give her say on verdict
Dan Levine @FedcourtJunkie
This is going to incentivize a lot more juror car trouble
methinks[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Alsup: It's juror number two in the front row. Tried to get
her husband to get her.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
Simon Linder @SimonHLinder
Judge read first third of jury instructions probably to draw
attention to the higher evidence burden for willfulness.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
Simon Linder ‏ @SimonHLinder
Jacobs wants jury to focus. Focus focus focus.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
Dan Levine @FedcourtJunkie
Jacobs: "You don’t avoid infringement because Android is big”[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
Rachel King ‏ @ZDNetRachel
Oracle: Google has no defense b/c it concedes most elements
of claims & for a few disputed elements, Google's arguments
arent credible[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
Simon Linder @SimonHLinder
Oracle closing slide shows a scale tipped in favor of them
against Google. Wonder if Google shows something similar
later.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Jacobs defined "symbolic references" AGAIN, arguing that
these appear in Android's Dalvik Virtual Machine/source code[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Jacobs admits that there were errors in Oracle witness
Mitchell's report, but defends it b/c he admitted it in
deposition video.
Dan Levine @FedcourtJunkie
Jacobs trying to convince jury that mistakes Oracle's expert
made were "honest" ones
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Jacobs trying to use that flaw against Google, saying Google
attys are using Mitchell's mistake as only defense
Dan Levine @FedcourtJunkie
Jacobs: portions of his report that accurately stated his
opinion are "unassailable"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Jacobs wrapping up on closing arguments as 45 minute-count
approaching. Van Nest will be up for Google after.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
Simon Linder @SimonHLinder
Jacobs tries to stress the importance of patents and Oracle's
investment in them. The ones Oracle didn't develop.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
Dan Levine @FedcourtJunkie
Jacobs flashes photo of ostrich with head in sand to
dramatize his willfulness argument
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Jacobs keeps using a reckless driver/car accident analogy but
considering why one juror was dismissed today, seems like bad
timing for that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Dan Levine @FedcourtJunkie
Jacobs done, will have 6 min left for rebuttal. His rebuttal
arg during first phase didn't sink the dagger in far
enough...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Van Nest starting Google's closing arguments. Turns out he
jinxed us by saying that it never happens in 5-wk trial that
jury always on time[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
Dan Levine @FedcourtJunkie
Van Nest: No evidence Google had any access to these patents
until Oracle threatened to sue[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Van Nest: Question 1 on new verdict form is the most
important question in phase 2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Van Nest's strength is that he can really argue in layman's
terms in common speech rather than sounding like a lawyer or
technical expert[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Google asserting that Android's Dalvik instructions only
contain numeric references -- NOT symbolic references.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
Simon Linder ‏ @SimonHLinder
Van Nest argues Mitchell wants to replace the word data in
the claim construction to support Oracle's, I mean his,
position.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
no text [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|