Why give them an opening to create another stink over nothing?
I don't think it's a major opening. Sure, if (20 years later)
the SSO goes to a jury due to some appeals process, this other stuff will tag
along. E.g. if Alsup ruled on rangeCheck and the files, that ruling would be
overturned and tag along with SSO to the jury.
But if Alsup decides to rule
that SSOs aren't copyrightable at this point, he can decide the rangeCheck and
file issue too and produce a "final" verdict on the whole case, which gets it
off his docket and makes it ripe for the appeals process. Otherwise, he has to
keep the case on his books, and as we saw in the SCO saga, the judge really
doesn't like doing that.
Alsup knows there is an excellent chance it will be
appealed. I would imagine that, among his other goals, he wants to: (1) see
that justice is done in his decision; (2) make his decision as well-reasoned and
appeal-proof as possible; and (3) finalize the case so the appeal isn't
interlocutory.
So, I could be all wet, but if Alsup rules SSOs are not
copyrightable, I expect him to simultaneously rule on damages and finalize the
case. Sure, Oracle can say "we're appealing this" but they could say that
anyway. More importantly, if the appeals court rules against Oracle on the SSO
appeal, they won't have much of an appeal on this issue, because they stipulated
to letting the judge decide, and Google gave the judge plenty of ammunition for
his decision. Abuse of discretion will be extremely difficult to show. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
