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
The Polar Bear in the room | 151 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Polar Bear in the room
Authored by: anwaya on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 10:12 AM EDT
There's an interesting thing about the trial briefs. Here's what the judge asked for:
First, Oracle should submit tonight a detailed nexus for the infringer's profits. If it's so minimal, so speculative a connection, we won't even go there. But I won't rule as a matter of law now; that's just how I think it should be, and I'd have to look at the Mackie case, the Polar Bear case, etc. If Google wants to weigh in on that, I'd welcome that as well. That would be due by 9pm tonight.
Oracle's brief made no mention of Mackie, whereas Google's did. And Google makes much of the argument that Mackie is closely analogous, and in Mackie no nexus between the revenues and the infringement was found.

I'm just saying.

[ 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 )