Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Oracle v. Google - Judge Alsup Rules APIs Not Protected By Copyright | 95 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Oracle v. Google - Judge Alsup Rules APIs Not Protected By Copyright

Authored by: nuthead on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 08:19 AM EDT

Given the way they roll, they'll wait 30 days and then file for an extension to
submit their appeal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Judge Alsup Rules APIs Not Protected By Copyright

Authored by: eachus on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:06 AM EDT

I'd like to say that Oracle can't be dumb enough to appeal this--but they have shown lots of obtuseness already. First, this line from the opinion: "This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted," is the real wooden stake. SSO, even if you can prove copying, is dead.

Second, Judge Alsup has retained the ability to rule on the latches and some other affirmative defenses proposed by Google. If a federal judge after listening to a case for three weeks, and lots of motion practice, believes that Google's hands were clean, how likely is some (future) jury to award damages, even if the case gets that far after appeal? (As I see it, Oracle has to win two appeals to get before a jury again...) Robert I. Eachus (IANAL)

[ 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 )