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

Appellate courts defer to jury findings of fact | 392 comments | Create New Account

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

Appellate courts defer to jury findings of fact

Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:15 PM EDT

You raise a question of validity for the "reexamination patent"
RE38,104 (James Gosling, inventor), but Google argued noninfringement at trial
(symbolic references were not in the instruction stream and were not resolved at
runtime).

The appeals court must defer to the jury's findings of fact, and in the absence
of manifest evidence of error, their role will be reviewing how the law was
applied.

Moreover the areas in which Oracle might argue for different application of the
law in this case are sharply restricted by the logic Judge Alsup applied in
deciding Oracle's motion for judgement as a matter of law on the patent
allegations. The jury based its findings on the instructions they were given,
and absent timely objections from the parties when those are submitted, appeals
based on a different proposed jury instruction go nowhere.

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

[ 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 )