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
Changes to Java licensing... | 305 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj
Authored by: Rubberman on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 01:22 AM EDT
I've been a serious Oracle developer since the 1980's. No
longer. Their position in this case has made me totally anti-
Oracle. I'll no longer support their software in any way,
shape, or form. I have to use Java for my work, but we are
now utilizing OpenJDK and not Oracle's proprietary version.
Also, we are using open source DBMS software. Most of our new
work is based on Hadoop/MapReduce and such.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pass the popcorn
Authored by: maroberts on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:32 AM EDT
I eagerly await Googles reply to this..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:41 AM EDT
This may be more of a Constitutional question, but if I
remember correctly,a jury may ignore the law when reaching
it's decision if it serves justice. There were articles in
the quick picks about a gentleman being arrested for handing
out pamphlets outside a courthouse explaining this issue.

I'm curious as to how this works in the context of a JMOL.
If the jury uses their constitutionally given right to
ignore the law and then losing party decides to go with a
50(b) motion, where does the judge stand on it. Whilst the
jury have ignored the law, it is something they are allowed,
even mandated, to do, but as a matter of law they have not
been reasonable.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Changes to Java licensing...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT
I was in a conversation over the weekend with a senior SW architect from a long
time Java using company. It turns out Oracle is changing the interpretation of
what falls under what as far as use goes. Their yearly license bill went up
over 20X from what SUN was charging. A rewrite in a new language and target DB
is now under way. It will only cost 7 years of licensing at the new rates. He
said he is going to enjoy the next licensing meeting with the Oracle reps. The
rewrite will be done and in production by then. LOL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:58 AM EDT
Is Oracle using this to try trap the judge into making mistakes so that they can
use it for their appeal?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: sproggit on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 03:49 AM EDT
Please post any corrections you may have in the title of your reply to this
post, in the form

Mistkae -> Mistake

Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this just BS&F pulling BS&F BS?
Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 04:00 AM EDT
This looks exactly like the "second bite at every apple" thing that
BS&F did in SCO.

Is this some sort of brain damage that this firm has, or is there some precedent
for most law suits getting double-dips at their whole case that I have never
heard of before?

I thought the -trial- preserved all the appellate rights by its very existence
and that an appeal cannot bring new information in (facts or claims anyway) by
definition.

Can the court start to "discount" the motion practice and
presentations of a law firm that consistently tries to get a do-over beyond the
scope of the first "do"?

Seriously, is there no thing in the system designed to limit this waste of
taxpayer/court money and time?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ellison has a lot on his Plate.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 04:06 AM EDT
He thinks he is going to beat IBM in Servers with his
already obsolete Sun hardware chips. (check the Stock price
of IBM and compare it to Oracle... )

He thinks he is going to beat SAP in ERP, something SAP has
been doing since the 70's and is very deeply entrenched in.
Actually SAP is going to beat him by moving out Oracle
databases from under their ERP systems by replacing it with
their own Hana.

He thinks he can beat Google even though he has already
lost? Isen't that beginning to look bizarre ...

He also thinks he is going to beat HP, he may actually have
a chance there since they have (in part) already defeated
themselves... we'll see, but I don't think that will really
happen.

Anything I forgot to mention?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:33 AM EDT
:-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT
:-D

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT
:-O

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

So no change form Oracle then? A roll of the dice.
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:48 AM EDT
Well as long as they are being paid the lawyers will keep dancing.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

From what I learned from the SCO trial, will Google file any 50a motions?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 09:47 AM EDT
In SCO vs Novell, when Novell did not raise a timely appeal on certain topics
from the original trial because the trial had otherwise gone their way, they
lost their ability to raise those same topics in the second trial, because they
didn't appeal motions they lost.

Does Google face the same type of issues, and should they be filing 50a motions
on things like the jury instructions on the ability to copyright the SSO, so
those don't become assumed correct if the case ever does get remanded?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:24 AM EDT
Oracle's motion should be ruled invalid as a matter of law,
as no reasonable attorney could have filed it. ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

More reason for BSF/Oracle to appeal on..
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT
With all respect to PJ, Oracle did not ask for everything...

More BSF Appeal reasoning:
</Sarcasm>
We are BSF, No Reasonable Law/Contract would be interpreted different than what
we say it is, so the Judge is wrong because he disagreed with BSF! (please note
same argument goes to Court of Appeals/Supreme Court)

BSF/Oracle must get a new trail because The Judge allowed BSF to choose an
unreasonable jury!

Oracle/BSF deserves a new trial because all of Google's witness's disagreed with
BSF/Oracle!

Although we initially agreed with the Wording on the Patents, ie Symbolic
references, agreeing with the wording did not work in our favor. So we,
BSF/Oracle, want a do over with the full agreement that any wording Google uses
as a defense is wrong and only the wording/definition BSF chooses is right, and
BSF can change the meaning of any word at any time as long as it benefits
Oracle/BSF!

Oracle deserves a do over, other wise how can we expect to make money to buy
more Hawaii Islands. (Ooops that's an Ellison reason for appeal)

Oracle deserves a do over other wise how can we expect to stay in business
without profiting from other people's work because we keep alienating our
existing customers.

Oracle/BSF deserves a new trail because Goggle's defense was better than our
arguments. The Judge must invalidate any and all of Google's defenses and give
BSF/Oracle a new trail where Google cannot defend themselves.

<Sarcasm/>


[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle is following the Caldera business model
Authored by: AH1 on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
I think I have finally figured this out. There is an anonymous consultant out
there who is pushing a brand new business model to Tech Companies who have been
slowly losing market share. Promising to make these to make Billions without
even trying. The plan goes something like this:
1. Locate a struggling tech company who owns a legacy technology that is worth
something.
2. Buy that company.
3. Hire BSF to file a lawsuit against a prominent tech company with deep pockets
alleging infringement on the precious IP/Copyrights/Patents that were acquired.
4. Issue a high profile press release announcing the law suit, being certain to
invite the "usual suspects" from the Tech Media.
5. Hint to your current customers that you have no problems suing them as well
if they attempt to find alternatives to your products.
6. Do your best to defer/delay the start of trial all the while smearing the
name of your opponent in the press.
7. Go to trial hoping that you can confuse a jury into believing that the story
you are telling is accurate.
8. If/when the trial does not go your way, have BSF file appeals hinting that
the judge/jury were wrong. At the same time get your pet members of the media
to smear the judge/jury in the press.
9. If the appeal succeeds repeat steps 6-8. Otherwise move on to your next
target until you run out of money. Once you are almost out of money pay
yourselves big bonuses, declare bankruptcy, sell what is left of your valuable
assets off to your cronies, pass along your marginal IP/Patents to the highest
bidding troll, lay off your staff then let the bankruptcy court divvy up the
empty hulk of what used to be your company to the creditors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IPwatchdog: New allegations of google copying Java
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT
Ipwatchdog.com has posted a new post which alleges that Google copied 9 files
plus at least 3,000 lines of code. The analysis was done by Safe-Corp:
http://www.safe-corp.biz/Oracle-Google

Unless a new trial is granted this is moot. However I wonder if it is true.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Evidence of "compatibility"
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 10:51 AM EDT
Oracle says that there is no evidence in the record of Android being
"compatible" with Java, and points to statements by various experts
that the bytecode and entry points would need to be changed to make a Java
program work with Android.

But they leave out a key fact:

Google has a dozen or so files that are "virtually identical" to
corresponding Java code, that are in Android.

The accused (and found infringed) TimSort code in Android is compatible with
Java, since the identical code behaves identically in the Java environment.

This is one example where Java code runs on Android completely unchanged. And
this is exactly what Google was trying to accomplish when they made Android
"compatible".

--Joe

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some potential counterarguments that Google could suggest to the Judge
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT

In their (presumably upcoming) reply motion, here are some of the things Google could suggest that the Judge rules:

  1. The issue of infringement of the SSO as ruled on by jury and judge, included infringement of said SSO by both the Android code and the Android documentation, as the SSO is the same for both code and its documentation when using the standard JavaDoc tool (as both Oracle and Google did). Thus the omission of the SSO from the separate jury question of "documentation infringement", simply indicates that this question was about the claim that Google's documentation infringed in ways other than the SSO. Similarly, the omission of the SSO from the separate jury questions of "code infringement", simply indicates that these questions were about the claims that Google's code infringed in ways other than SSO. The jury ruled that to the extent copyright subsists in the SSO of the code and/or documentation, Google is guilty but may have equitable defenses (the jury hung on equitable defenses for SSO infringement). Thus if this courts ruling on the issue of copyright on SSO was to be reversed and a new jury were to repeat the present jury's ruling and further deny Google's equitable defenses, then this would be a ruling of guilt on both the SSO of the code and the SSO of the documentation. Thus this court did not err when it did not include the issue of SSO infringement in the jury questions about non-SSO infringement.
  2. (Alternative to the above, at the judges choice): It is clear from the arguments and evidence presented by both sides in this case that the allegedly infringed work of "Java 1.5 platform and class library" contains 3 distinct aspects, each of which defendant Google was accused of infringing: A. The documentation text as available for download from plaintiffs web site at the relevant time. B. The actual implementation code as available in various forms from plaintiff under various conditions. C. The SSO of the code and documentation which represents the API design decisions of plaintiff and/or its suppliers. Accordingly this court asked the jury to rule separately as trier of fact on each of those 3 aspects, and the jury found infringement of C (but hung on the equitable defenses), found infringement of specifically accused parts of B (said parts being chosen by plaintiff in its claims) and did not find infringement of A. Thus when this court did not include category C in its jury questions about category A and B, it did not err and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by a jury verdict which was entirely in its favor.
  3. As to issues that were not fully briefed at trial and were not ruled definitely on, such as various equitable defenses (such as estoppel, latches, copyright validity) and various additional accusations (such as certain English language comments), the lack of full briefing on this was done in the interest of a speedy trial and neither side should be prejudiced by their omission. Thus these issues may be reopened by either side if there is a retrial and shall not be treated as conceded by either party except for the specific promises made before trial and affirmed by rulings during the first 2 days of the present trial.
  4. This court stands by and does not reverse its ruling as a matter of law that copyright does not subsist in the Selection, Sequence and Organization of the code and documentation in the 37 API packages, no matter who may or may not hold a related copyright registration.

[ 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 )