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
No inconsistency between Oracle vs. Google and Oracle vs. Lodsys | 300 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
software patents must DIE!!!
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT

That will never happen. Too many vested interests. You think Microsoft, or thousands of other trolls with lobby power in Washington will stand still and watch that happen? How 'bout IP lawyers? You think there are going to stand by and let that happen? And lest you forget, most Congress people and Senators are lawyers too.

The only way software patents will be ever eliminated is if the people rise up in an Arab spring type revolution and demand it. How 'bout software developers all over America going out on strike (perhaps on their lunch breaks, of course)? That is what needs to happen, and it's not going to happen until people get organized.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Good Guys" Hypocrisy
Authored by: PJ on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 09:08 PM EDT
Focus on this part: <i>they should get their head handed
to them on a silver platter</i>...<P> The little guys who were
Lodsys's first victims couldn't fight like Oracle can. This is a good thing that
Oracle is willing to spend money to win this battle.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No inconsistency between Oracle vs. Google and Oracle vs. Lodsys
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 09:41 PM EDT

In Oracle vs. Google, Oracle assumes that Software patents are OK in principle, claims that 26 of their own patents are valid specifically and claim that Google did something covered by those patents. At trial, they agreed not to discuss validity at all, and only fought over the issue "does Android do what the patents say they cover".

In Oracle vs. Lodsys, Oracle claims that 4 of Lodsys patents are invalid because some other people invented (and patented!) the same stuff first. They don't say that the patents are invalid because they are on Software or other such reasons we would love to have case law on.

In both cases, Oracle thus assumes that "Software patents are good", and then proceed just as they would if these were old fashioned hardware patents. This is consistent, even if we don't like the bad assumption.

Note in particular: All the prior art cited by Oracle against Lodsys is a bunch of other patents, while the prior art cited by Google against Oracle (at the Patent office only) included non-patent publications such as academic papers and books.

I would say these cases look like Oracle is presenting itself as a patent hard liner, which is also the type of company that usually puts patent indemnification clauses in its paid EULAs.

[ 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 )