|Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 09:09 PM EDT|
"Limits on openness" is a reporters summation of a jurors
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
were disinclined to accept that there were any limits on
what use of
Java specifications could be made outside of
actual use of the
Alrighty, then, try to find something in the jury verdict
form or instructions,
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: .
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
As for the wholesale copying of nine lines of code,
judge who said it happened said it was not a significant
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
admitted he told other jurors, and of all the
jurors making statements, that
they looked to him for
guidance on patent validity issues.
that's not patent law is it? That's just technical guidance. This is
risk you run with a jury trial. Note that if he meant to say "hardware" instead
"processor", his theory makes sense: Apple's method won't run on a
based device. Although the legal problem here is that he
Doctrine of Equivalents, but again: jury trial. It's a real
So next time I suggest that you read something
You mean, like ?
and oh yeah
get over your butthurt about the Oracle
vs Google verdict.
Pretty much nothing on this forum in the past few days has been anything
than piling on the Hogan guy. Just exposing the double standards here,
people use the "I'm-rubber-you're-glue" argument. Butthurt much?
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.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]