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: dio gratia on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT
Judge Alsup appears to have been clear where he found written description
limitations in claim construction. Claim term construction outside those
limitations likely implies indefiniteness, and likely also limits doctrine of
equivalent results.

Oracle may not succeed in transmogrifying their 'invention' to suit the present
case following that path, and appear to have disclaimed it anyway (1170,
"Oracle’s infringement evidence proved literal infringement of the ’104
patent claims, and there is no need to consider the doctrine of
equivalents.").

Oracle's claim construction issues (1134, 1189) both appear to have timeliness
issues with the court's claim construction order (137). Both jury
clarifications appear to find support in the original claim construction order
contrary to Oracle's preferred interpretation (clever fellow, the Judge).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Didn't one of Google's briefs explain why Oracle not permitted to use this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 01:17 AM EDT
It *is* wrong, simply because otherwise the patent was granted on prior art
implemented in every compiler since K&R C, probably before.

That's the problem with Oracle's arguments, it would have been a real mess if
they'd won. Google going back to the patent office saying "Well the courts
say this means this, not what you interpreted it as, but here's 20 years of
prior art".

Patents have to be very narrowly, strictly, interpreted to avoid that problem.

[ 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 )