|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
| Good. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "I'm satisfied." - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:06 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
Dr. Kearl has been paid in full for his work to
date on this
matter aside from his most recent June 8,
2012 bill which is currently being
processed for payment.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
So PJ can fins them
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- If attorney's fees aren't recoverable costs, I'm confused -- help PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:20 AM EDT
- Tetris Holding, LLC wins copyright case against clone maker - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT
- Do you still believe in software patents? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- It's self-deriding n/t - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 02:31 PM EDT
- What about Windows RT, which is not WinRT? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Fox News does not like the Surface - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? VaporMg (magnesium) case... not "will it blend", but "will it burn"? - Authored by: mirrorslap on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- True Microsoft Innovation: Brilliant - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:19 PM EDT
- Meh...netbook - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- Are they *trying* for an invalid trademark? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 12:29 AM EDT
- Microsoft: We don't need no stinking partners - Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 10:02 AM EDT
- Nvidia Replies - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- A cryptosystem should be secure even if everything about the system, except the key, is public - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT
- Capitalists Who Fear Change - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 12:05 AM EDT
- EFF Launches New Patent Reform Project to Defend Innovation - Authored by: betajet on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT
- Ubuntu’s founder shares his thoughts on what Linux should do next about Windows 8’s UEFI lock-in - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
Thank you for your support?
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
From ORACLE’S PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, on May 31,
2012, the Court dismissed Oracle’s claim
for copyright infringement as to the
structure, sequence, and
organization of the accused 37 Java API packages;
Didnt they loose this one, I dont think it can be said the
claim was just ended.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I may stand corrected - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- Invalid Claim - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 12:34 PM EDT
- Dismissed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mirrorslap on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
| Woohoo! I will be there... when does it start? Same courtroom? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
5. Taxable costs Google states that, as the prevailing party,
it intends to seek its costs in this matter. Oracle will be prepared to address
this issue at the conference.
What does that mean exactly? That
Google can get some reimbursement for expenses?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Taxable costs? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Taxable costs? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 08:43 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
Reading both parties proposed final order documents, they seem to agree that,
except for claims and counterclaims that were made moot, that Google won in
defending against most of Oracle's claims, and won all of it's own
counterclaims, but Oracle did win on 2 of the copyrights claims, so in a case
like that where both sides won on some of the claims, is there a
"prevailing party" as Google puts it, to be able to get costs awarded
to them? Is there any precedent in this area. I would assume that there would be
lots of precedent and for this to be a pretty well determined facet of the US
federal court system, but if they have to argue it at the hearing, maybe not.
If I were to sue someone over violating my rights over, say, 10 things, and a
jury found that the defendants had only violated my rights concerning 2 of those
things, I would still think that I was the prevailing party, or at least that
the defendants were NOT the prevailing party.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
www.manufacturing.net/news/2012/06/oracle-shares-slip-on-talk
-of-management-shake-up
Oracle Corp.'s stock slipped
Monday amid unsubstantiated reports that the business software maker is
preparing to announce a reorganization that could include the departure of the
company's top sales executive in North America.
Several securities
analysts who follow Oracle telegraphed the possible shake-up in notes published
Monday. Although they differed on how broad the reorganization will be, the
analysts all said they had been told Keith Block is ending his 26-year career at
Oracle. Block has been Oracle's executive vice president of North America sales
and consulting for the past decade.
Nomura Securities analyst Rick
Sherlund said he had been told by an unnamed industry source that Block left
Oracle at the end of last week. JMP Securities analyst Patrick Walravens
speculated that Block's departure is part of a "massive" reorganization of how
the company sells software applications and computer
hardware.
Could this be in any way related to the loss in
Court?
It wouldn't surprise if it
was.
---
______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:32 AM EDT |
All patent infringement claims that are voluntarily dismissed under
this Judgment are dismissed with prejudice except as to new products that Google
may introduce after the date of this Judgment, pursuant to the terms of the
Court’s May 3, 2011 and March 2, 2012 orders.
This seems to be
a clear hint at future litigation, as PJ points out. But it doesn't end
there:
16. Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of
Invalidity of the ’104 Patent (Count Two) is voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice....
20. Google’s Counterclaim for
Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’520 Patent (Count Six) is voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice....
Note that those are the two
patents which were tried, and for which judgement was entered in favour of
Google. Is Oracle trying to knock out Google's defenses in case they can get an
appeal to go their way?
Compare to Google's
version:
12. Google’s Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgment of
Invalidity of the ’104 (Count Two), ’702 (Count Four), ’520 (Count 6), ’447
(Count Eight), ’476 (Count Ten), ’205 (Count 12), and ’720 (Count Fourteen)
Patents are dismissed as moot.
From Google it's "moot", from
Oracle it's "voluntarily dismissed with prejudice" (emphasis
mine).
--------------
I also notice that Oracle's version
continually specifies which ruling comes from which court order or jury verdict,
where Google's does not. I suspect that Oracle may be planning to appeal one or
more of those court orders or jury decisions, and they want a nice, easily
referrable-to record of what decision led to what to make that appeal
easier. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
RE: "And David Boies was publicly given a verbal spanking by this
judge."
Is this referring to Judge Alsup's statement to the effect that rangecheck could
have been written by highschoolers?
Sorry to ask but I've been on holiday and have missed parts of this trial.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
