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
It'll be about who's quick on the draw | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
It'll be about who's quick on the draw
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT
I suspect that was done deliberately by Oracle
for precisely that reason.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The fun thing with prior rulings on a given patent: The Jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 09:46 AM EDT

Any Jury, anywhere, at anytime:

    Can decide to invalidate a patent!
So long as the defendant gives them ample reason to do so.

And unless the Appeals and Supreme agree that the Jury decided wrong and the patent really is valid. The ruling stays forevermore!

Said patent could have been successful in 10 previous cases in Texas, and a Jury can still find it invalid.

    The beauty of the power of the Jury over a patent grant by the USPTO.
But again: the defendant has to give the Jury ample reason for such a ruling. And proper prior art searching can be very costly. The costs in the time of the attorneys, combined with the costs in the time of the experts involved combined with the tools currently available for such searches. So not all defendants argue against the invalidity of the patents:
    In the recent case of Oracle vs Google, Google decided to forgoe it's arguments of patent invalidity.
Caveat: I'm not sure why Google decided to forgoe it's invalidity claims, just that it was part of some of the Legal rangling that ended up being agreed to.

RAS

[ 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 )