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
Newspicks thread | 278 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT
Not that there is much to correct now, but that will
change... though I hope there isn't much need to correct it

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
Please provide a link to the newspick, so when it scrolls
off, we don't need to go hunting for it

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
Keep anything unrelated to the Googacle here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom - Oracle v. Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
and says "_________" - this is the second time I think he said that
under his breath (the Groklaw reporter must be pretty close to the action to
pick up on that).

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom - Oracle v. Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
Twitter is saying that they submitted a joint stipulation for
$0 in damages to facilitate appeal, and that Google will be
asking for trial costs within the next 14 days.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes thread
Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
Post HTML transcriptions, but leave post mode as Plain Old
Text, so PJ can copy/paste it

[ Reply to This | # ]

Zero damages!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT
Rachel King ‏@ZDNetRachel

Google paying $0 in statutory damages as Oracle plans appeal: Oracle gives up on statutory damages as it tries t...
http://zd.net/M5Fqa1

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Final judgement" has such a nice ring to it.
Authored by: mirrorslap on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT
I sure wish Oracle would buy a clue and just give up their silliness. They've
spent
enough money to have bought an entire clue-bat factory, from which they
could
have derived much wisdom. Or they could just read Groklaw... :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rule 50b
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT

Was Oracle right about Rule 50b motions?

---
a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | # ]

I admire that expert's always upbeat opinion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT
He wrote:
...And there will be a far more thorough, and more strategic, analysis of that issue at the Federal Circuit than in the district court...

Question

Is this always the case? I ask because there are instances when that same court has 'refused' to hear an appeal. How then does analysis become more thorough?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The thanks to mirrorslap thread
Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 07:03 PM EDT
Thank you very much for yet another fine piece of reporting, and for having covered much of the trial so well.

Volunteers such as yourself have done a great deal to help make Groklaw what it is, honest, accurate, reliable and timely. Oh, and interesting too. We can already see how badly some of the "professional" reporters have performed!

[ Reply to This | # ]

This Judge Will Not Award Costs!
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 09:35 PM EDT
My Prediction.

Based on his obvious disdain for corporate cases this judge will not award costs
to either party. He will decide there was a split decision and each party should
bear their own costs.

Google won on patents, Oracle won some copyrights.

It's not like either party can't afford the costs.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is an appeal judge inclined to do?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 11:39 PM EDT
I'm wondering if appeal judges are more likely to side with whomever prevailed
at trial when damages are $0. It seems to me its not worth the time and effort
when the appellant already agreed to zero damages.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom - Oracle v. Google ~pj - Updated 3 Xs - Final Judgment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT
Isn't Oracles Motion a good thing?

Judge Alsup will have the possibility to explain (again) why
Oracles arguments are **, making it easier for the judge
deciding on the appeal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Yes, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT
CAFC vs district appeals court
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 11:32 AM EDT
This is probably a simple question, but why would this case be heard by the CAFC
rather than the 10th circuit appeals court?

I know that the CAFC has jurisdiction over patent appeals, but over half of
Oracle's case had nothing to do with patents.

Shouldn't the appeal be split, with the 10th circuit hearing the copyright case,
or is there some jurisdictional discretion that would allow the federal circuit
to hear the whole case?

--Joe

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quixotic?
Authored by: seeks2know on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT
PJ,

Quixotic carries a connotation that the objective being pursued is noble (e.g.,
to right the unrightable wrong).

I don't find any noble about Oracle's aspirations.

---
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it
steadily."
-- George Washington

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hawaiian island
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT
"I guess a guy who buys a Hawaiian island can do other expensive things the
same summer, like file Quixotic appeals."

My guess the intent is to convert the island into high rise apartments similar
to South Beach (Miami Fl) and rake in millions of dollars.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prevailing party
Authored by: pem on Friday, June 22 2012 @ 02:47 PM EDT
An anonymous commenter on an earlier article pointed out the EchoStar v NDS lawsuit.

This case is interesting for a few reasons:

1. It's a Ninth-Circuit case with an appellate decision -- e.g. IIUC it's controlling law that the Federal Circuit should apply in Oracle v. Google.

2. The appellate decision was that, even though EchoStar "won" (like Oracle), they didn't actually win anything of value, and Echostar was then forced to pay NDS's attorney's fees and costs for the entire case -- $18 million. (Actually, EchoStar "won" even more than Oracle -- they were awarded $1500 in damages, not $0.)

3. The appellate decision was a reversal of the trial decision on costs and attorney's fees -- apparently, the appeals court really, really wanted the plaintiff to pay for the meritless suit.

From Wikipedia:

In August 2010, the Ninth Circuit stated in its decision that “EchoStar did not succeed 'on any significant issue' or 'achieve any of the benefit it sought in bringing suit' under the Communications Act.” The Ninth Circuit awarded NDS US$18 million and concluded that “There is no question that NDS successfully defended against all of EchoStar’s claims based on or related to its theory that NDS was responsible for the compromise of EchoStar’s satellite television programming security system.”

In February 2011, the Ninth Circuit further stated, “NDS was the prevailing party in this litigation and that EchoStar fails to meet the legal definition of a prevailing party on any of its claims.”

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )