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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Didn't one of Google's briefs explain why Oracle not permitted to use this? | 380 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Didn't one of Google's briefs explain why Oracle not permitted to use this?
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT
They said it was litigation by ambush IIRC. Google complained they couldn't
defend adequately against this argument because Oracle didn't disclose it in a
timely manner. In other non ambush context this objection wouldn't apply.

I was mentioning the doctrine of equivalents because there are people around who
insist the literal execution of the instruction must control the construction of
the claim. Some of these persons will not admit there is room for diverging
views on this topic. I think this is importing a very specific technical
viewpoint into a question of law. This is not necessarily wrong. This argument
could be made and could be accepted by a judge because it has a lot in its
favor. But it does not mean other arguments can't be made and reasonably
supported. I brought up the doctrine of equivalence to raise awareness that
claim construction is a legal question and several views of the same facts can
be reasonably argued by the parties.

I think Dr Mitchell misstated some facts of computer science including what
dynamic execution means. The '104 patent isn't infringed because of the
requirement of dynamic resolution. But Oracle's interpretation of symbolic
reference is one which is open to discussion. I don't say it is right, but I
don't think it is blatantly wrong as some other posters think it is.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Didn't one of Google's briefs explain why Oracle not permitted to use this?
Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT

Oracle v. Google - JMOL (Patent) Response Briefs, 1169 and Oracle's response in 1170.

[ 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 )