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
Why hasn't Oracle | 300 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why hasn't Oracle
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 09:10 AM EDT
My guess - unverified - is that if Google already has them being re-examined by the USPTO, there is no reason for Oracle to duplicate that request.

IIRC, this means that Lodsys is now embattled on three distinct fronts:

1) Apple is intervening in court based on the exhaustion principle, having agreed not to go for invalidity or non-infringement defences, because they had taken a licence from Lodsys. This of course mostly helps iOS developers.

2) Google has initiated USPTO re-examination to try for invalidation. This potentially helps everyone.

3) Oracle is going for invalidity and non-infringement defences in court. This potentially helps everyone if they can prove the patents are invalid, but only Oracle customers (direct and otherwise) if they have to rely on non-infringement.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Why hasn't Oracle - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 03:31 AM EDT
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 )