decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The jury lacks a mathematical approach to the problem | 543 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why does the jury struggle so much?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
I have to agree. Oracle had the burden of proof for a preponderance of evidence
threshold. Even then all they could
do was little better than embarrass themselves in public and
generally create confusion for anyone trying to make a
consistent interpretation of their evidence.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why does the jury struggle so much?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
Oracle / BSF realized that their only chance was to cast Google as bad actors,
using emotion to convince the jury of infringement both copyright and patent,
rather than explain exactly why the copying was significant and infringing.

They did not want the jury to "understand", but to emote.

--SPQR

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why does the jury struggle so much?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
It is Oracle's duty to explain the patent in simple, easy to understand language. If they fail to do so...

... then maybe there's something wrong with the patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why does the jury struggle so much?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT
Unfortunately it is standard practice to recast the invention behind a patent
into complicated legalese (often intended to head off work-arounds to the actual
invention).

I've had one idea patented - after writing up a nice description of how the
gadget would work, it was handed over to the patent lawyers and when the patent
application came back for me to check it made my head hurt to work out what the
patent was actually describing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The jury lacks a mathematical approach to the problem
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:06 AM EDT
Mathematically thinking about the problems makes the subject simple.

Unfortunately, such a rigorous approach is not in the experience of 90% of the
population.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )