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
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

Username:

Password:

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Really, ya'll gotta get over ... | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Really, ya'll gotta get over ...
Authored by: PJ on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:03 PM EDT
Could you please clean up your language? This is
Groklaw. Thanks.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Really, ya'll gotta ...
Authored by: JonCB on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT

Jury instruction 26.

Now, I will explain the law governing Google’s defense based on the statutory right of anyone to make “fair use” of copyrighted works. Anyone may use any copyrighted work in a reasonable way under the circumstances without the consent of the copyright owner if it would advance the public interest. Such use of a copyrighted work is called a “fair use.” The owner of a copyright cannot prevent others from making a fair use of the owner’s copyrighted work. For example, fair use may include use for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.

From the article you quote :-

Thompson did suggest there was a general sense among some jurors that Oracle's intellectual property claims might not be in the public's best interest.

Or to switch that around... Allowing google's "Fair Use" defense would "advance the public interest". Thus the Jury's evaluation of whether Google's usage would "advance the public interest" is very much on topic, as per the Jury Instructions.

As opposed to what the AppleVSamsung jury which basically ignored the jury instructions... BY THEIR OWN DESCRIPTION.

Well, that's not patent law is it? That's just technical guidance.

You miss the point. If they had followed the jury instructions as they were told to, it would have told them what the requirements are for Prior Art. Feel free to look it up right now, it's under the heading "FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 31 UTILITY PATENTS—ANTICIPATION" .

Now that you've had a chance to familiarise yourself... i ask you this question. Where does the Jury Instruction say that something "not being able to run on the same processor" would invalidate the prior art?

[ 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 )