| |||||||||||||
Fair use or "first excuse"? Oracle v. Google goes to the jury (ars technica)Fair use or "first excuse"? Oracle v. Google goes to the jury (ars technica)Posted May 1, 2012 14:46 UTC (Tue) by rdale (guest, #70788)In reply to: Fair use or "first excuse"? Oracle v. Google goes to the jury (ars technica) by xtifr Parent article: Fair use or "first excuse"? Oracle v. Google goes to the jury (ars technica)
"Note that this isn't the whole case; this is just the copyright portion of the case. The patents are still to come." The aren't multiple patents - as far as I know it is just a single patent at issue which is about initializing static arrays. That doesn't sound like it is innovative earth shattering stuff that Oracle deserves to get hundreds of millions of dollars for to me. So if Oracle lose the copyright part, it looks like their case has pretty much fizzled out.
(Log in to post comments)
Fair use or "first excuse"? Oracle v. Google goes to the jury (ars technica) Posted May 2, 2012 5:11 UTC (Wed) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link]
I believe it's actually two, although one has been tentatively rejected on re-exam by the PTO. But because the rejection isn't final, Oracle's still going to be allowed to present it in court. But my point was simply that we still have weeks to go before we get a final decision on what happens with Android.
Fair use or "first excuse"? Oracle v. Google goes to the jury (ars technica) Posted May 2, 2012 8:00 UTC (Wed) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
> But my point was simply that we still have weeks to go before we get a final decision on what happens with Android.
I'd say months ... I am pretty sure that whoever looses this will appeal the court decision so ...
Fair use or "first excuse"? Oracle v. Google goes to the jury (ars technica) Posted May 2, 2012 9:16 UTC (Wed) by rdale (guest, #70788) [Link] But because the rejection isn't final, Oracle's still going to be allowed to present it in court. Oracle asked the judge to allow the patent to be included in the trail, but the judge rejected their request as the trial had already started. From Groklaw:
Update: 5: Dan Levine has now tweeted that the judge has said no to Oracle's request. And he has indeed: "Oracle will be required to stand by its word and live with the dismissal with prejudice." http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120425133552218
|
|||||||||||||