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
Wonder is da judge has a proof reader? | 392 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Yes, the writing is exceptionally clear!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:05 PM EDT
This order is written so clearly, in plain English, that even people with no legal training (such as myself) can easily read and understand it.

Great job by Judge Alsup.

I hope this ruling stands the test of time. After reading it, I certainly believe that it deserves to.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Very readable
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT
It could, but then it will likely go to the appeals. Where the judges probably
will not be so well versed with programming and software in general. Most likely
end up having it overturned and an even bigger mess will ensue, dragging it even
longer still.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Very readable
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:18 PM EDT
An early order could have been appealed.

To run its course properly justice needs time and all
parties must be given the opportunity to defend their case
fully.

That way Oracle will not come back for more. Or if they want
to try again they will have to be very creative and come
from a completely different angle that does not involve
either patents or copyrights...

I sincerely wish them luck :-)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Very readable - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT
    • Very readable - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:39 PM EDT
Wonder is da judge has a proof reader?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT
This is an amazing technical piece of work. Anyone found an error yet?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I disagree
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:20 AM EDT
We're certainly out taxpayer dollars, that's true, but the entertainment value
I've received from watching this case makes up for that, I feel.

Oracle is out a bunch of cash, but given BSF's fees, and the fact that they paid
for Boies himself to handle the case, it's no small sum.

BSF got paid, true, but this is a very high profile loss for them, and besides,
they've sponsored a regional arts festival, so I know at least some of that
Oracle money is coming back to my area.

Google is out their legal fees, but I'm sure that however much they had to pay
out, it still falls respectably short of their bid for the Nortel patent pool,
which they never had to pay out on anyway.

So, overall, pretty good, I think.

bkd

[ 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 )