Great outcome. The patent verdict I was hoping for and believed
correct.
As to Groklaw
self-congratulations, well, I would hold off on
that. I will thank all the
participants for sharing their time, tweets, and
thoughts as issues arose in
testimony and motions. As to prescience for
outcomes, it seemed to
me over
the past couple of weeks, every question from
the jury was read as a sign that
they were getting it wrong, things were too
complicated for them, and Google
was going to get robbed. While a lot of energy
has been expended both in posts
and comments
that the patents are invalid
because of obviousness or prior art, the two left
standing were successfully
defended on the basis of "We didn't it that way."
Exactly a point
that has to
be decided by a jury (or the Judge in a trial) and not via motion
practice. "We're better than Florian Muller." Really? That's the
aspiration? Perhaps I'm being mean here and I'm in a bad mood
because I
tend to not like "Told ya!" types of posting. I do appreciate that
Groklaw
takes a lot of work and there is a better signal to noise ratio here, as
compared to standard tech press types. But there was noise. Some of it by
Oracle
partisans running the p.r. game. But some of it by license ideologues
who give
Google a pass on many things. Nothing wrong with that and indeed I
agree that
the facts of history provide some support for the world view.
Nonetheless, it is a
perspective, and a site that is about the law and facts
should celebrate until the
cows come home and then at some point, after the
confetti has been
swept up, be contemplative and ask
the question, did our
affinity for Google cause us to, at any time, stop being
crowd sourced
journalists and become partisans, with our attentions
focused on disproving and
ridiculing Oracle's claims while accepting Google's
claims at full,
unchallenged value. Just a thought and I sincerely
apologize for raining
on today's parade. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
