IANAL
Google did agree to withdraw those claims
But
not if Oracle raises the same patent against a new product. I don't believe
that was part of the agreement. I additionally suspect Google only agreed
because they were willing to help streamline the trial as well as they felt
positive they could convince a Jury they didn't infringe the patents.
I'm
a little puzzled to P.J.'s reaction.
That bargain was to irrevocably
dismiss with prejudice. I see no language talking about any new products being
susceptible.
I'll need to review the authorings with P.J.'s
statement in mind. I can think of two possibilities:
A: Oracle raises the
patent against a currently existing product when a new product is
produced.
I would fully agree with P.J. that such a situation should not be
allowed.
B: Oracle raises the patent against a new product Google
produces.
I wouldn't - philosophically, I don't know how the Law actually
applies - agree with this situation as being prohibited.
Imagine a
Psystarian who wanted to infringe a patent with impunity without paying license
fees. So they put together a product that might infringe patent XYZ just to try
and goad the patent owner into initiating a Lawsuit. The owner initiates the
Lawsuit and either:
A: The patent is dismissed from the current lawsuit with
prejudice.
or
B: The Jury finds the Psystarian innocent and hadn't
infringed patent XYZ.
Does it really make sense to allow the Psystarian to
then make new products that actually infringe XYZ with no license and be immune
from a new lawsuit?
It doesn't to me.
Apple was able to convince
the Judge to issue an explicit order of preventing Psystar from creating a new
product of infringement because they were able to show the Judge Psystar had at
least the intent to continue such practices. In that same vein, I'd expect the
same to apply in this case combined with future products and future possible
cases.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
