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 your butthurt about the Oracle vs Google jury's decision | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Really, ya'll gotta get over your butthurt about the Oracle vs Google jury's decision
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 09:09 PM EDT
"Limits on openness" is a reporters summation of a jurors summation of the attitude of the tech savy jurors. All put into a tweet which has severe limts on the number of characters used. I take it mean that the tech savy jurors were disinclined to accept that there were any limits on what use of Java specifications could be made outside of actual use of the tradmark.
Alrighty, then, try to find something in the jury verdict form or instructions, which is plenty more verbose than 140 characters, that indicates that this should have been a concern of theirs. And if you want a more complete quote, here it is: [1].

Something experts testified that Sun mot only indicated publicly but intended.
Yeahhhh, the jury didn't buy it. (Hint: Yes, there was a question related to it on the form. No, they didn't think Google should have believed it.)

As for the wholesale copying of nine lines of code, even the judge who said it happened said it was not a significant amount.
Actually, my bad... it wasn't rangeCheck, it was the 9 test files that the Judge had to overrule the jury on. And it doesn't matter if it was de minimis, my point was the jury didn't see it.

This compared to Hogan who pushed a theory, "if runs on a different processor it is not prior art", something which he has freely admitted he told other jurors, and of all the jurors making statements, that they looked to him for guidance on patent validity issues.
Well, that's not patent law is it? That's just technical guidance. This is the risk you run with a jury trial. Note that if he meant to say "hardware" instead of "processor", his theory makes sense: Apple's method won't run on a keypad- based device. Although the legal problem here is that he didn't consider the Doctrine of Equivalents, but again: jury trial. It's a real crapshoot.

So next time I suggest that you read something other then tweets,
You mean, like [1]?
and oh yeah get over your butthurt about the Oracle vs Google verdict.
Right. Pretty much nothing on this forum in the past few days has been anything other than piling on the Hogan guy. Just exposing the double standards here, and you people use the "I'm-rubber-you're-glue" argument. Butthurt much? :-P

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2012/05/ora cle-v-google-jury-foreman-reveals-oracle-wasnt-even- close/ The jurors didn't want to limit "future expansion of the common good." That was not part of the verdict form. If they wanted something like that, one option available to them was Jury Nullification.
[2] http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/7/3004697/oracle-google-tri al- deadlocked-jury-partial-verdict

[ 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 )