02/20/2013 - 1475 - Certification of Counsel Regarding Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Entry of an Order Authorizing Abandonment, Disposal, and/or Destruction of Property and Payment of Related Expenses (related document(s)1474) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 7 Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B) (Tarr, Stanley) (Entered: 02/20/2013)

02/20/2013 - 1476 - HEARING CANCELLED/RESCHEDULED. Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing. Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 7 Trustee. Hearing scheduled for 2/22/2013 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Tarr, Stanley) (Entered: 02/20/2013)

02/20/2013 - 1477 - Order Authorizing Abandonment, Disposal, and/or Destruction of Property and Payment of Related Expenses (related document(s)1474, 1475) Order Signed on 2/20/2013. (SB) (Entered: 02/20/2013)

Microsoft has filed one, together with EMC Corporation, and NetApp, Inc. Scott McNealy has filed one with Brian Sutphin. Can McNealy be a witness for Oracle at trial, which he was [PDF], and also file an amicus brief? Well, he has. The Picture Archive Council of America, Inc. has filed one with the Graphic Artists Guild. Also there's one from the BSA. And finally Eugene Spafford, Zhi Ding, and Lee A. Hollaar have filed an amicus in support of Oracle. Hollaar seems to file a lot of amicus briefs.

So why do these entities and individuals care about this Java API case, do you suppose?

I know the media in general are saying that Mr. Bowman is almost certain to lose, judging by the questions asked by the justices. I disagree that questions asked by judges mean anything certain, by the way, but in any case some of the questions asked evidenced a deep understanding of the unusual aspects of the facts of this case and the dangers they pose.

This is a case the fact pattern of which has never come up before. While Monsanto tries to compare Roundup Ready seeds to software and vaccines, the truth is there's never been a case before about a patented invention that in the normal course of events naturally reproduces itself.

And what Mr. Bowman's attorney, Mark P. Walters, points out -- particularly at the end -- is that Monsanto's position removes patent exhaustion entirely from the picture, in that when you buy -- as opposed to licensing -- a patented product, there is supposed to be an end to the patent owner's rights. But Monsanto claims that while there is a transfer of title, buyers must agree to a "Technology Agreement" which places conditions on use. Can it have it both ways, sale and license? The only way to use the invention here is to plant and grow the seeds. And Monsanto is claiming rights not only to generation 1 seeds but every generation after that. You can't plant those generation 2 seeds for a crop without infringing the patent, they claim, even if you bought them from somebody else.

As Patently O earlier pointed out, "Both the district court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply to new copies of a patented product created by the accused infringer." However, Mr. Walters argues, if that applies in this situation, where is the exhaustion of patent rights in this picture? These are self-replicating seeds. It's not the same as copying a million copies of someone's software. It's just doing what farmers do. Can Monsanto legally void the patent exhaustion doctrine in such a fact pattern? Can it force farmers to farm differently than they have from the beginning of time? We're talking about 90% of all soybeans planted in the US being from Monsanto's patented seeds, after all. How do you avoid infringing now? You'd have to buy new seeds from Monsanto every planting. Think of what that means.

These are the right questions, at least, and I believe at least some of the justices understood it.

Meanwhile, in Apple v. Samsung I, which is still going on, the parties will be arguing before the Federal Circuit on March 26, as both parties believe the magistrate judge is threatening to unseal too many documents in that case, and things are on hold until the appeals court decides who is right. So far, that is about the only thing the parties *do* agree on, that the magistrate has gone too far. Here's Apple's supplemental appeal brief [PDF] on that issue of sealing from Apple v Samsung I. William Lee of Wilmer Cutler will argue [PDF] for Apple on March 26, and Victoria F. Maroulis of Quinn Emanuel will argue [PDF] for Samsung. That's at 10 AM on March 26 at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC.

If you are getting confused, so is everybody. The judge even asked at the February 14th hearing in Apple II if it didn't make good sense to put that case on hold until they get a ruling from the Federal Circuit on Apple I, the other appeal in Apple I, the one Apple filed about Judge Koh's refusal to order a permanent injunction against Samsung, which you'll find here.

I do wish Apple would spend this much time and money and heart into creating new products instead of throwing it to the winds like this. This litigation never seems to resolve anything that matters, and only the lawyers are having any fun.

Guess how many lawyers are listed on the brief for Oracle? Twenty-eight: 6 from Boies Schiller, 5 from Kirkland & Ellis, 10 from Morrison & Foerster, and 7 from Orrick, Herrington. I'm assuming Oracle cares about the outcome plenty. You won't believe how the Introduction opens:

Ann Droid wants to publish a bestseller. So she sits down with an advance copy of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix—the fifth book—and proceeds to transcribe. She verbatim copies all the chapter titles—from Chapter 1 (“Dudley Demented”) to Chapter 38 (“The Second War Begins”). She copies verbatim the topic sentences of each paragraph, starting from the first (highly descriptive) one and continuing, in order, to the last, simple one (“Harry nodded.”). She then paraphrases the rest of each paragraph. She rushes the competing version to press before the original under the title: Ann Droid’s Harry Potter 5.0. The knockoff flies off the shelves. J.K. Rowling sues for copyright infringement. Ann’s defenses: “But I wrote most of the words from scratch. Besides, this was fair use, because I copied only the portions necessary to tap into the Harry Potter fan base.”

Obviously, the defenses would fail.

Defendant Google Inc. has copied a blockbuster literary work just as surely, and as improperly, as Ann Droid—and has offered the same defenses.

If anyone is in the Denver area or is free to get there in May, it's time to start to plan. It's a wonderful opportunity to see Mr. Boies in person doing what he does best. And David Tulchin, for Microsoft, is considered one of the best appellate lawyers in the country. And most of all, the Groklaw family is hoping for news from the courtroom, if there is any way a volunteer can be available.

And now I've come across something that I think might be helpful, a May 19, 2010 memo [PDF] by Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. to all federal prosecutors, letting them know that he wanted them to be fair and reasonable in exercising their prosecutorial discretion. He told them that he wanted them to be flexible, too, not necessarily bound by maximum/minimum guidelines, but to look at the individual circumstances of each case, stating that the "reasoned exercise of prosecutorial discretion is essential to the fair, effective, and even-handed administration of the federal criminal laws". That raises a natural enough question, of course, about whether that policy was followed in the Swartz case, but that isn't what struck me. It's this as BLT explained it at the time:

The May 19 guidance, which replaces previous memos from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, says all charging decisions must be reviewed by a supervisory attorney. All but the most routine indictments should be accompanied by a document that sets out charging options and explains the charging decision. People who commit similar crimes and have similar culpability should be treated similarly.