|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
If any are required. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Newspick - Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: cassini2006 on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
This document is interesting. It appears that the parties are
expecting:
a) Oracle will continue in its attempts to appeal the rulings and
to create a new type of copyright law around the SSO issue.
b) Google might
will on almost all points.
Point 5 is particularly interesting. It
contemplates the possibility for a complete Oracle loss on the patent case. It
is possible the third phase of the trial may never happen.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
Raw tweets -
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast/oracal-
vs-google-trial
Feldegast
tweets -
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast--- IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tweets from the courtroom - time for a jury question - Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- Jury question - can "containing" mean inclusion of process - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Oracle - Yes, Google - No - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Judge takes Google's side - literal only - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- LMAO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- Jury heading home - no decision today - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Thursday - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- Shannon Stewart? n/t - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT
- Jury on lunch break for 30 mins. Nothing heard yet. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Jury question coming in - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Some excitement - incoming jury note (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Lawyer returned to court - Oracle were waiting. Alsup has arrived - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT
- Note hasn't been read out - both sides in a huddle - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT
- Jury want to know about scope and meaning of simulation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:40 PM EDT
- Jury asking how to evaluate the evidence on how Android works - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- Alsup offers to bring the jury back for 5 minutes each way arguments - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- Jacobs says no to argument - wants court to decide. Van Nest weighing options - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT
- Alsup : Jury must decide themselves - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- Jury reaction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Sounds like another jury note coming in... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- Apparently they are staying until 4pm today... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT
- Want Mitchell transcript read... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- Will take 30 minutes to prepare... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Yet another note! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- Missing court reporter... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT
- A juror is sick - wants tomorrow off - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Alsup skeptical about getting tomorrow off - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- Plan is go home now - if sick tomorrow then dismissed from jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Transcript not available now - jury are heading home - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:29 PM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How the Professor Fooled Wikipedia - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- Oracle kills Itanium 4 years early - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- Oracle Seen Lagging In Mobile Business App Store Push - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- Software developer revives debate about whether journalists should learn to code - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- Part of the natural ebb and flow - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 02:13 AM EDT
- RHEL "...focusing on what Linux can deliver rather than on Linux per se " - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 07:36 AM EDT
- PTO Director Compares 'Smartphone Wars' to Patent Battles of Old - Authored by: StrangeAttractor on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT
- Microsoft's $100 Million Bond (Germany Xbox) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT
- Wright Curtis patent wars - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- Meat Cutters Discover a New Steak - Patents Pending - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- Universities & Intellectual Ventures - Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- Oracle, Google Huddle on Road Map. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Verison to customers: 'Grandfathered' does not mean what you think - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- NATO & Patents - Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 07:15 PM EDT
- NATO & Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT
- OIN - Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:19 AM EDT
- OIN - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 02:16 AM EDT
- OIN - Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 02:50 AM EDT
- NATO & Patents - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 02:20 AM EDT
- NATO & Patents - Authored by: rcsteiner on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- Senate filibuster unconstitutional? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:03 PM EDT
- Mad Cow , Pink Slime , Meat Glue, Looky I Patetened a new cut of Steak - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- Google, Mozilla Complaints About Microsoft Browser Eyed by Senate Panel - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT
- Judge Blocks Controversial NDAA - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- Windows 8 will "disappoint" - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- DOJ says that citizens have right to record police. - Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- Social media meets Darwinism - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:38 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
My biggest take away on this is that Oracle is desperate to get something -
anything - they can spin as a win.
If I read this correctly, they've just agreed to allow the judge to determine an
award of statutory damages. Probably the right thing to do, but completely
contradicts every public position they've taken on the matter. Unfortunately,
as was made clear yesterday, while the judge knows the law, he's also a
programmer who knows the actual value of the materials infringed. Any statutory
award he make is likely to be the absolute minimum possible -- the kind of
infinitesimal amount greater than zero ordinarily seen in first-year calculus
courses.
But it will be an award of damages to Oracle, and you can believe they will
shout...er, maybe whisper... it from the rooftops.
Otherwise, they will have spent millions on this litigation, spouted all sorts
of nonsense and trash-talked Google all over the place, and gotten nothing
whatsoever to show for it.
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- For the Historic Record - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Oracle: But we HAVE to win SOMETHING!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Technically, I suppose that's true. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- Maybe stock in lieu of cash? - Authored by: vb on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT
- but even if they win... - Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT
- Boies looking for a precedent? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- Oracle: But we HAVE to win SOMETHING!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- Oracle: But we HAVE to win SOMETHING!! - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT
- Oracle: But we HAVE to win SOMETHING!! - Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:38 PM EDT
- Oracle: But we HAVE to win SOMETHING!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:07 AM EDT
- Oracle: But we HAVE to win SOMETHING!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:09 AM EDT
- Oracle: But we HAVE to win SOMETHING!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:19 AM EDT
|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
Thanks to all the volunteers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
It might take years for a "future jury" to hear the SSO claims again yet the
parties need to know if this future event will occur in order to make decisions
in the here-and-now such as letting the judge decide statutory damages and
having Oracle waive infringer's profits.
What happens if they take path
(3) in the here-and-now and then years later a future jury hears the SSO claims?
I realize PJ keeps warning us to avoid trying to apply real-world logic to
legal proceedings but I'd still like to know what this agreement actually
means.
--- 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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
I've followed Groklaw almost since the beginning. My poor wife looks over my
shoulder and sighs! I'm seriously concerned that in 2019, when this case finally
gets to the supremes, I will still be checking the site 5-10 times a day.
I'm reminded of the film "They shoot horses don't they"; is following
Groklaw a basis for voluntary euthanasia.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sad Reality - Authored by: hairbear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- Sad Reality - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- Sad Reality - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT
- Sad Reality - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- Sad Reality - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT
- Sad Reality - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- Counselling... - Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT
- Counselling... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- Sad Reality - Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 10:09 PM EDT
- Take one for the Team - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:21 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
If Oracle win 200 bucks, you just know he will scream from the
rooftops about how he was vindicated and how Google had to be
punished.
Perhaps a few more big cases wrong like SCO and now Googacle and
perhaps tech sites will stop using him as a source.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
Google agreed not to "contest" ownership of the copyrighted code.
Oracle has -not- demonstrated any copyright ownership of rangeChec() at all.
It is part of the composite/compiled (?) work that was registered, but the
original author was in court and he -said- that he -donated- the code. There was
no work-for-hire or assignment of copyright brought in by any party with respect
to any legally required transfer of copyright in the "donation" of
that code.
That is, since its not real property "donation" does -not- confer
ownership. Particluarly since, according to what I learned in SCO v. world,
copyright only transfers on an explicit writing for that transfer.
You are, according to other things I have read here (as a non-laywer) entitled
to statutory damages for unregistered code, let alone code you don't
-exclusively- own.
By definition, and given the evidence of non-ownership, Presented By Oracle no
less, isn't the -maximum- statutory damages -owed- -Oracle- for infringing
rangeCheck() legally capped at $0?
The actual, original author of rangeCheck() might well have a statutory claim
for $200 or $150k or whatever, but Oracle has proven that they are not that
person...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- e.g. isn't "afirmative proof" require for statutory damages? (n/t) - Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:08 PM EDT
- Contributed (not Oracle) code. $0 maximum statutory damages? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:16 PM EDT
- Contributed (not Oracle) code. $0 maximum statutory damages? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT
- I think you're confused - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT
- Contributed (not Oracle) code. $0 maximum statutory damages? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:59 AM EDT
- Original sin - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:58 AM EDT
- Original sin - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:44 AM EDT
- Original sin - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 06:04 AM EDT
- RangeCheck = trivial - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:29 AM EDT
- Google agreed not to challenge the Java SE Registration ownership - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:34 AM EDT
- Alsup has thrown out Google's request for JMOL on copyright registration / ownership - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:30 AM EDT |
Decide to but a buy a board game, say Monopoly
Check current bank account:
Overdrawn → move money from savings → don't buy game
Not enough in account → buy cheaper game
Cost of game is less than the money in my account → buy game
Infringe Sun/Oracle RangeCheck() patent → go directly to gaol (jail)
do not pass go, do not collect £200 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
Or so it's being reported.
Not sure on the reasoning.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
Oracle twists, turns and flat out lies on their Rule 50 Judgement as a Matter Of
Law brief - see here:
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf
3/OraGoogle-1168.pdf
One example:
Oracle’s expert, Dr.
Mitchell, testified that the dx tool simulates the execution of
bytecodes to
determine the static initialization of arrays. ... To that end, the dx tool
examines the
bytecodes without executing them to determine the static
initialization that they perform. ... That is the very definition of
“simulating
execution” recited in the patent claims.
So in Oracle's
mind, any method you use to initialize an array, that doesn't execute bytecodes,
is "simulating execution"????? Very convenient of them to leave out the word
simulating in their arguments, and only bring it in to their
conclusion.
Really, it is extremely difficult to read and follow their
brief due to all the mental and literal gymnastics required for them to try and
prove their point.
One last example (my favourite):
As set forth
in Oracle’s objection to Jury Instruction 11 (ECF 1128), the
Court’s
construction of “symbolic reference” should be adjusted to accurately
reflect the meaning of the
terms “dynamic” and “static” as used in the ’104
patent and the Court’s May 9, 2011 Claim Construction Order. Under the proper
construction, Google’s non-infringement argument based
on dynamic vs. static
resolution disappears.
After we have gone through the whole patent
trial and sent the jury to deliberate, we want you to go back and change a
fundamental part of the claim constructions so that we don't
lose.
Groklaw's rules against foul language prevents me expressing how
I really feel after reading that!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|