|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
| They made enough on this case that they don't care .... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: IANALitj on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 01:17 AM EDT |
We outsiders really don't know what was going on.
I am reminded of SCO. One time after another, SCO did not have much of a case
(the Blepp briefcase excepted, of course) but they went ahead with those cases
anyway. SCO does not seem to have done well thereby. Many comments on Groklaw
suggested that a "puppetmaster" or "pipe fairy" was
encouraging SCO or its executives for its own reasons.
We similarly do not know what has been going on behind the scenes here. If,
hypothetically, Oracle (acting through its highest executive) went to BSF and
said, "I'd like you to take this case," and BSF said,
http://harts.net/reece/humor/management [language warning]
and they were asked to go ahead anyway, what would you expect BSF to do?
Don't you think that BSF's peers will understand that BSF did what their client
wanted? Do you think that this is the first time that a prominent law firm has
(hypothetically, of course) been asked to engage in dubious litigation for
tactical or strategic (or personal) reasons? Don't you think that BSF's peers
will respect them for doing as well as they have under very difficult
circumstances?
I have no idea whether Mitchell's peers will cut him as much slack.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 01:43 AM EDT |
Well, when they started off they had sooooo many patents and claims that
how could they not lose. When you have 40 cards, how could they otherwise
win and with the stakes so high. (Or maybe they got 52 cards) with copyright
thrown in for good measure.
Then Google did the impossible, their computer scientists searched and found
prior art in never before seen quantities and got the USPTO to invalidate most
of those cards. The two remaining were easily seen how Google did not
infringe. Also, Google did not fold and settle. The copyright became the
strongest of their case (so much so that Oracle's fans were calling that the
copyrights were always the best cards and that Android is still going to pay
big time).
Well, it's close to finding out how strong that API copyrightability card is.
There is strong evidence that it is not even a playable card. The end result
should be out of 6 billion in potential damages less than the lawyers cost if
anything. (Basically Oracle should end up losing money and customers over
this debacle.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
I believe it is as simple as Larry Ellison promised
to Steve Jobs to assist him in his "holly" Fight
against Android and Bigmouth Ellison failed now....
regards,
Ernst[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
...how could Oracle have gone to trial with such a weak
case?
They didn't. They went in with a packaging of patents and a
fanfare. This is the gold standard in the software industry. Both
parade with erigated patent portfolio in press and court, and in a private
settlement, a cross-licensing settlement is made according to the demonstrated
portfolio sizes.
Standard industry practice. You are not supposed to poke
holes in the other's portfolio and deflate it. Drawing substantial amounts of
liquid assets needs to remain the exception in territorial quarrels, or it
becomes detrimental to the species' well-being.
Google played dirty. I
don't even remember them seriously drawing some counterclaim from their trousers
making it possible to compare fishiness. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:53 AM EDT |
Which is similar to the MS way - buy whatever, sue whomever, for any reason when
the target causes an irritation.
So nobody but Ellison is responsible for this.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
What you don't understand is that this was never about the case on trial. It
was, and is, about egos and fighting a software business paradigm shift.
It's is no secret that Oracle's CEO has a hugh ego. He has to be the biggest
kid on the block. Nothing less is acceptable. Enough said.
It is also no secret that Google, Red Hat, and others are making a fine living
in the software business using the open source philosophy. For any company that
makes closed sourced software, this has to strike fear in their hearts, since
those companies are built on maintaining their code and keeping their
"customers" locked into their product. Simply put, closed source
companies like Oracle and Microsoft can not compete with open source because
they don't get the open source philosopy! The closed source company's product
is software. The open soucre company's product is service. This basic
different means that the two types of companies will have completely different
perspectives and structures. As a result, what we are seeing is the struggle to
the death between the closed source business model and the open source software
business model; a classic paradigm shift.
This case was never about the strength of the claims. It was about trying to
kill open source, and it is a continuation of the SCO nonsense. Close source
companies know that they are in a death struggle, and that they can't complete
with open source because they don't "get" open source.
So what do you do when you are in a death match and you are about to lose? You
throw everything you have in a last ditch battles to win they day, even if what
you have is so weak that it couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag.
This case (and SCO's case) was never about the case's merits. It is about the
death of Oracle and other closed source software companies.
Biochem Guy
not logged in[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
Personally, I'm begining to think any time BSF is called in for
representation the case is likely a dud!
When you're case is really
shaky, and your dread comes from lack of evidence, who ya gonna
call:
BSF!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
CEO's knowing too little about the law -- lawyers
knowing too little about software.
Both see each other's contagious greed, both think
there must be something to the other's zest, (only
the part they themselves can understand).
Before you know it the lot together have come up
with a plan.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
Is a book that explains this behavior. It's an interesting
read.
One of the main themes in the book is that people faced with
unpleasant prospects tend to make risk-seeking choices as
opposed to risk averse choices. As time passed, Oracle's
prospects dimmed and they increased their risk rather than
cutting it.
A less risky position would have involved a certain loss of
some magnitude -- pride and credibility if nothing else. So
Oracle pushed on for the win, no matter how slight the
chance.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hail Mary - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Hail Mary - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Hail Mary - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
|
