|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Jury: Can we determine a numeric reference instruction to become
symbolic because of what happens downstream? Oracle says yes.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Jury still looks confused over symbolic references ('104 patent,
which means we're back to Q1 of 3 on verdict form)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Jury also asks: Regarding symbolic reference in '104 claims, does
the resolution of symbolic references need to happen immediately.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: On that, Google's Van Nest advised answer should be yes or at
least symbolic reference must be contained in instructions[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Judge Alsup mulling over what to do now. Courtroom waits in
silence.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Jury also asks on determining claim language on '520, is stack
synonymous with memory? Oracle says no; memory not be confined to stack
Van Nest acknowledges they're not entirely synonymous, saying all stack is
memory, but all memory is not stack.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Alsup seems tired of listening to Van Nest & Jacobs disagree,
says "You lawyers aren't going to agree on anything." Jury coming back
in[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: For determining claim language on '520, is stack synonymous
w/memory? If so, is the definition of memory confined to stack? Judge rules no
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: On symbolic/numeric reference ?, judge says cant give y/n answer,
but reiterates definition of symbolic reference[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Basically more jury?s the judge cant answer for them & says
"You can send as many notes as you want, and we'll do our best to answer
them"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: For the record (i.e. appeals court), both sides object to Alsup's
instructions after jury left
Alsup didn't take that well; said "pointing my fingers at both of you"
and we'll do the best with the jury system we have
Alsup added to whomever loses this lawsuit: "too bad for you, you'll have
to take it up with the federal circuit"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
| @Rachel King: Time for another jury note... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Jury?: If all other claim limitations are met, is DVM infringing
104 via any resolution of a symbolic reference anywhere in the data fields[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Jacobs says yes, Van Nest says we've seen this question before,
and answer is clearly no b/c symbolic reference has to be in instructions
VN: Otherwise it ignores the way the case has been tried, which is both experts
said you have to have symbolic reference in the instructions[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Van Nest says this is the issue that the jury has been debating
all along. Alsup says he isn't sure that is true.
Judge bringing the jury back in.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Judge: If all claims are met, then yes that's infringement. But 3
out of 4 is NOT.
Yet another ? where Alsup says he can't give answer to the facts. Says he can
only tell them what the law is. They must apply facts to law.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: He's doing it in a nice way, but Judge Alsup is basically scolding
the jury b/c they keep asking him to do their job.
Judge Alsup's final word: I trust the jury to get it right.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
@Rachel King: Alsup to #OraclevGoogle lawyers: If we have a hung jury on these
issues, you should be thinking about what next steps are.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
