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
Will Oracle really continue? | 380 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Will Oracle really continue?
Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT
Parsley is likely to haunt Oracle's lawyers. That a case with only parsley
shouldn't have been brought to court in after being tried in the court of public
opinion for billions, billed as good versus evil.

You'd think Oracle is in the position of attacking claim construction, in that
any clarification offered to the jury is based solidly on it (See OraGoogle-137,
both dynamically and symbolic and numeric references in opposition). I don't
see any timely objections, Oracle waited instead until they developed their
parsley strategy approaching trial phase 2 (OraGoogle-1134), conflating symbolic
and numeric references in original and new instructions in expert testimony.

If Oracle hadn't tried to bushwhack Google at trial perhaps they would have
fared better. Alternatively their case might have fallen apart before reaching
a jury. As observers we can contemplate this strategy likely came from
BS&F, the objective to get the case before a jury. But they can't like what
the jury did with it.

The worrying aspect for the aficionado is whether any CAFC de novo claim
construction will remand to another jury, with Google forearmed mind you. I'd
consider it unlikely after a bit of googling that Judge Alsup's claim
construction will get overturned.

The center ring is still the API SSO copyright question. Will we see copyrights
as even more parsley?

[ 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 )