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
How can the jury be unreasonable one week, and reasonable the next? | 294 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Dear Oracle, please step up to the Judge Alsup's legal toaster.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT
It grilles to perfection .. lets see how you are doing .. oh. looking a little
bit burnt on that side .. hmm.

Perhaps we shoudl turn you over and grill the other side? ...

Oh dear, it looks like that side is already overcooked too! ... I think, you are
done!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Not yet... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
  • No no - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT
Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary in the title can be helpful.

No fair pointing out all the corrections that Oracle
needs in their pleadings, theory, actions, etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Judge commenting on Oracle's Dr. Mitchell
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT
"[...] For this reason, a reasonable jury could have rejected
every word of his testimony."

Ouch, that's pretty harsh right there

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic Discussions
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
Anything not related to the main article (or the news picks on the Groklaw home
page). Please make links clickable.


---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well concluded but will there be any consequences?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT
This is one of the most beautifully worded statements I have read today.

A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions.

But how can one "fix" truthful submissions? That expert was obviously lying.

Here's the question:

Can that expert and Oracle's attorneys be prosecuted for lying under oath? They did precisely this many many times.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How can the jury be unreasonable one week, and reasonable the next?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT
I don't understand the ability of the judge to chop and
change. How can the jury sometimes be reasonable, and
sometimes unreasonable. Isn't it one or the other?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Footgun!
Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT
The Footgun™® which passed from SCO to Oracle seems to have had a major upgrade to convert it to rapid fire.

One more upgrade, to thermonuclear, and it should be passed on to M$.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

That conclusion is beautiful
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
They say that a good laugh once a day does amazing things for your health.
Beautiful!

[ Reply to This | # ]

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy.
Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:04 PM EDT

The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.

There appears to have been no question about Prof. Mitchell's willingness to call his own expertise into doubt by repudiating crucial conclusions of his submitted report.

But evidently this was simply not crazy enough. He should have demonstrated thinking further outside the box by insisting that the report conclusions concerning "numeric references" in indexes were 100% consistent with conclusions that these were at the same time "symbolic references".

Perhaps in a quantum state which mixes indiscernibly their simultaneous numeric and symbolic characters. Yeah, that's the ticket.

---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem prover." -- Richard O'Keefe

[ Reply to This | # ]

To stack or not to stack
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT
Now having seen the claim in question :
compiling source code containing the array with static values to generate a class file with a clinit method containing byte codes to statically initialize the array to the static values; 2 receiving the class file into a preloader; simulating execution of the byte codes of the clinit method against a memory without executing the byte codes to identify the static initialization of the array by the preloader; storing into an output file an instruction requesting the static initialization of the array; and interpreting the instruction by a virtual machine to perform the static initialization of the array.

The reference here of "a memory", when taken in context of the sentence can ONLY mean a memory stack. You have an array, which is a block of memory, which are always treated as a stack of memory, at a programming level. The OS may actually handle it different, but it will appear to a program to be a stack of memory. Unless of course, I'm getting old and senile, everything that claim states is referring to actions that anyone skilled in the art would implement as a stack operation because that how it describes it, albeit implicitly. Sure you could switch it up a bit by using some fancy parallel process, or multiple threads attacking it in a btree fashion, but those are all still just treating it as smaller and smaller stacks. As opposed to a pattern-matching which wouldn't use this tack at all.

An array is nothing but a linked list with a random access method. A linked list is really nothing but a memory stack. I'd even be willing to wager that the whole thing is a typo and was supposed to read "a memory stack". No coder writes like that, "a memory", what the? "A memory" what. You can have: "a memory stack", "a memory module", "a memory block", "a memory region", and so on.

Never, ever, have I ever heard of "a memory" in relation to computers. I have "a memory", a memory of my first bicycle, a memory of my broken collarbone, a memory of my first pet, an so on. Computers don't have "a memory". They don't get happy, they don't get sad, they just run programs.

So while the judge was right "not all memory is stack", in this case there really isn't any other way to think of what they are indicating. Basically they said "load an array into a stack, manipulate the array in the stack, return an answer from the modified stack".

[ Reply to This | # ]

The truth about the '104 patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT
The Google code really DID pre-optimize symbolic references. The subtly here is
that the patent explicitly uses the term "in the instruction stream."
The symbolic names are indirect references, so they are not "in the
instruction stream." However, they ARE in the "object code," so a
reasonable practitioner, versed in the art, might easily conclude that this
single level of indirection does not prevent dexopt from violating the patent.
Oracle completely missed this, As did Google. Google should have emphasized that
patent claims must be specific, so "in the instruction stream"
specifically narrows the scope, and Google should have shown prior art to
demonstrate why a broader claim ("in the object code" or "in the
object file") would have been rejected by the patent office. Otherwise, a
reasonable practitioner would think that this distinction was lawyerly
logic-chopping, and would find for Oracle.

No reasonable practitioner, however, would think that dexopt operates "at
runtime." Google should have stressed this much harder. It does not matter
that symbols were resolved by dexopt: there is no way whatsoever that this
happened at runtime. Google should have hammered each Oracle expert on this, and
should have driven this point home with every expert of their own. They
apparently failed to convince the jury of this fundamental and blatantly obvious
(to a professional) point.

Conclusion: the jury reached the right conclusion for the wrong reason.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could this end his career?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT
I just had one more thought after reading this juicy quote:
The foregoing is sufficient but it is worth adding that Oracle’s infringement case was presented through Dr. Mitchell. A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions. For this reason, a reasonable jury could have rejected every word of his testimony.
Does that mean his expert witness career is over? Or won't future litigants be able to point out information about his last time up? One would think that something like this written in a ruling would follow him around and undermine his credibility in the future, but maybe people will not know about it and will fail to dig it up. Then again, maybe we can make that quote famous enough that searching for his name makes that quote the first hit....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dr. Mitchell. A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in his report merely to be
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT
Ouch - Thats got to hurt.

I wonder the opinion of the ppl this chap teaches will be when they see this?

And his colleagues?



---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Water still wet
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT
In a case this complex, it was almost pro forma that the
losing party would file a Rule 50 motion. And it was almost
pro forma the judge would deny that motion. Nothing should be
a surprise here.

Except of course the judge taking the opportunity to kick Dr.
Mitchell when he was down. That, I must admit, made my day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Oracle Motion for JMOL on Patent Infringement Denied
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 10:57 PM EDT
There was some speculation after DoJ et al vs MS that some of MS's witnesses
would be tried, but they never were.

In theory they could be prosecuted, the most likely way would be for the judge
to refer their testimony to the State's Attorney, which he probably won't.

I wish they would at least do so for Mitchell. A guilty verdict, even a
suspended sentence would make it impossible for him to ever again be an expert
witness. At the moment it doesn't seem likely, but the judges statement for
example, is indirect enough that some desperate plaintiff might still use him.
I'm worried thatnothing happening might come back to harm the FOSS/android
communities,

[ Reply to This | # ]

What I don't understand is...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 11:18 PM EDT

...how could Oracle have gone to trial with such a weak case? Well actually, calling it a weak case would be an unjustified endorsement. The fact is, they had no case at all, based on the facts. How come they couldn't anticipate the flaws in their arguments and the strengths in Google's? Even that quack Michelle realized Google didn't infringe and had to resort to quackery in an attempt to cover up. But why couldn't they anticipate that the claims construction wouldn't work for them? It was obvious to us. Like the judge said - he gave them chances to redefine simple words like "data", and they didn't take him up on that.

I can't believe they invested all that time and effort in hopes of conning the jury, or their prosecution would have been more consistent. I mean, how do you explain Michel's earlier "mistakes"?

I do believe there was a major screw up. Somebody though they had a solid claim, and too late they discovered they didn't. It was too late to back out at that point. (From their perspective, though my personal opinion is that it is never too late to admit you have made a mistake.)

So who's head is going to roll after this? I think Boise is going down a few notches in the eyes of their peers at a minimum. They blew it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

spacex-release-splashdown/
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:10 AM EDT
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/spacex-release-
splashdown/

Good stuff :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick: Larry Ellison comments
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:37 AM EDT
From the horse's...umm mouth, andArs Technica:
"I wouldn't describe it as a patent case,"..."It's really a copyright case." ... "We won on infringement," ... "The jury found that Google infringed our copyrights. I don't want to go into a lot of detail. The important part of the case is about copyrights and copyrightability of software. When the litigation is over, I'll be happy to talk about it."

That's nearly one full Jobs of reality distortion!

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Java is safe
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:33 AM EDT
While there has been speculation that this trial would or should result in less
use of Java, I think the trial shows that if you use Java you're safe even if
the purported owner of the language sues you.

I certainly am not going to decrease my use of Java. However, I'm not going to
use anything that results in revenue to Oracle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Oracle Motion for JMOL on Patent Infringement Denied
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:21 AM EDT
I'm not at all sure I'd say 'Free'. They guys don't come cheap.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google's Next Step?
Authored by: RMAC9.5 on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT
IMHO, Google's should, after this case is appealed, sort Oracle's and Microsoft's published patents and then, starting with their weakest patients, use prior art to file re-examination requests with the USPTO.

Because "The best defense is a good offense" (see WikipediA), Google should let the world know that if you EVER attack us with "bogus" software patents, we will use our search engine resources to defend ourselves and to invalidate ALL of your "bogus" software patents so as to NEVER have to defend ourselves from you again!

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: jonathon on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT
Since there isn't yet one, but there have been half a dozen threads that belong
under News Picks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SSO not copyrightable - fresh off twitter
Authored by: awkScooby on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:01 PM EDT
Ginny LaRoe ‏@GinnyLaRoe

Judge Alsup: Structure, sequence and organization of 37 APIs is not
copyrightable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • YAHOO!!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT
Oracle v. Google - Oracle Motion for JMOL on Patent Infringement Denied
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT
Reuters A U.S. judge rejected Oracle Corp's contention that parts of the Java programming language can be copyrighted

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Oracle Motion for JMOL on Patent Infringement Denied
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 01:33 AM EDT

From Osvaldo Doederlein:

Here's some purely-technical commentary about the Oracle/Google lawsuit, specifically the patent '104. It was tough to see the bogus technical controversy in court, and even Groklaw and the tech press failed to detail the technical issues appropriately. So here's a Symbolic References 101 for ya.

More on Google+< /a>

[ Reply to This | # ]
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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds