decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

109 pages | 42 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
109 pages - 700 questions to decide
Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT
In Oracle vs Google with only 3 to 4 questions, none of the Jury's decisions
survived post-judgement. APIs were determined to be non-copyrightable, the range
check was trivial and worth nothing and the 8 files was reversed on a JMOL. Why
did they bother with a trial by jury?

We saw in Novell vs SCO that Novell lost a judgement in their favour on appeal
because they did not preserve the right to argue for it post-judgement.

So here then we can expect both sides to put in motions post-judgement on all
700 answers whichever way they went. Judge Koh's work is not yet done.

Gravity sucks, supernovae blow!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

109 pages
Authored by: betajet on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT
So if the jury simply decide that nobody infringed, they can just go home and
can ignore the damage instructions, right?

I like the way Oracle v. Google made damages a separate phase of the trial, so
the jury knew they'd go home at least a week early if they decided that Goggle
hadn't infringed.

IMO there's clear and convincing evidence that Apple hasn't been damaged by
anybody given its current stock valuation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No reasonable jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT
would tolerate the reading of the instructions.

Are we primed for the appeal now?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

109 pages, plus another 22.
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT
The tentative jury verdict form (docket item 1870) is 22 pages long has 36
questions and somewhere close to 680 sub questions total.

I'd expect the jury would do some rough metrics before deciding the effort is
intractable. You never can tell they might already be unanimous or nearly so
walking in.

How long it takes may be a balance of preconceptions on the close of testimony
versus duty outlined in the instructions.

We could be regaled by twitter comments for weeks or months on questions and
requests for read back. Think how much money might be implied having respective
counsel cooling their heels waiting for questions or even a verdict.

It'd be entertaining after all that to end up with a mistrial for jury question
intractability. Any juror public comments might be sublime.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Cooking it in the oven could help
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 05:52 PM EDT
It dries the pages out making them easier to rip. That is how people manage the
trick of ripping phone books in half. This thing is a bit smaller than a
phonebook, but at 109 pages I suspect most Jurors wouldn't be able to rip it in

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

109 pages
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:22 PM EDT

If I were on this jury, I would seriously consider invoking the eight amendment
(cruel and unusual punishment) and walking out.

Either that, or just say everybody loses right away so I wouldn't have to decide
on anything else.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

109 pages
Authored by: ais523 on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 06:52 PM EDT
I just read the whole thing. It's not as bad as it sounds; most of the 109 pages are empty space. The instructions look like a summarization of the relevant laws (not being a lawyer, I can't tell whether they are or not, but imagine we would have heard strenuous objections if they weren't); I got bored only around halfway through, which is not nearly as bad as I thought, but kept on going, and learned quite a bit. The problem is just that there's so much going on in the case! It very much looks like both sides have piled on all the defences and counterattacks they can think of, and the poor jury have to be taught the details of all the relevant laws to decide which ones work.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Fortune (1975)
Authored by: betajet on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT
Number one on my list of movies not available on DVD in the USA is The Fortune (1975) starring Stockard Channing, Jack Nicholson, and Warren Beatty. It takes place in the 1920s, with the Mann Act and Prohibition in full force. There's a wonderful scene where they decide to rent a Southern California bungelow from Mrs. Gould (character actress Florence Stanley), who then recites from memory an interminably long list of rules, things like:
After you take a shower, always wipe down the walls with a towel. It's so easy to do, and only takes a minute.
As this goes on and on, the camera pans across the bored-out-of-their-skulls faces of our heroes and heroine, clearly wondering if this painful episode will ever end.

Great movie, marketed as "Handsomer than Laurel and Hardy, sexier than the Marx Brothers, but not as smart as the Three Stooges."

[ 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 )