This is an argument that can be clearcut and not subject to easy appeal -
read Googles briefing closely, there is interesting precedent. And if he can
rule no patent infringement as a matter of law, then all the other tough
and/or technical issues become moot (with respect to patents).
It is the
handset makers that "make" the infringing products, not Google.
With regard to
copyright issues, Google would be the infringer; they took the
IP and
incorporated it into a new and infringing work (or so Oracle argues.)
But with
respect to patent violations, teaching someone how to use a
technology,
providing them with plans to do so etc. is not an act of patent
infringement.
When that third party starts manufacturing and selling the
infringing product,
Oracle must go after the manufacturers, not the copyright
violator, to enforce
their software patents! It is only working systems that
embody, and therefore
infringe, the software patents.
This could be argued as indirect
infringement, enticing others to infringe
the patents. But Oracle and Google
have already stipulated to link direct and
indirect infringement - Oracle
thinking that if they win direct, they
automatically win indirect. But Google
may have trapped them on the issue -
they gave up the right to claim indirect
if there isn't direct infringement!
Of course, if they are found liable
for patent damages, the handset
manufacturers might have recourse to sue
Google, but that might be tough
since they paid nothing for Android, so
Google's liability may be minimal...
---
My ideas are my own - if you agree with me, does that make you a thief? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
