Oracle v. Google - Updating the Reexams (Groklaw)

[Posted June 22, 2011 by corbet]

Groklaw has an update on the reexamination of Oracle's patents that are being asserted in its case against Google. "In the reexamination of U.S. Patent 6192476 the USPTO has issued an office action in which it rejects 17 of the patent's 21 claims... While Oracle has asserted seven different patents in its claims against Google, if this reexamination is exemplary of what Oracle can expect in each of the other reexaminations, Oracle will have a hard time finding claims that it can successfully assert against Google, and there lies Oracles conundrum. Oracle either has to agree with the court's directive to limit the number of claims it will assert at trial, or it is likely the court will simply stay the trial until the reexaminations are complete."

Oracle v. Google - Updating the Reexams (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 23, 2011 20:42 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (3 responses)

According to the table the USPTO has reviewed 3 patents so far and tossed all the claims on two patents and all 17 of 19 claims on the most recent review. If that continues and the end result is the same (after all the appeals) Oracle isn't going to have very many Java patents left.

Oracle v. Google - Updating the Reexams (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 23, 2011 22:44 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

This would be a lovely outcome.

Oracle v. Google - the new wrestling dinosaur newts

Posted Jun 24, 2011 2:59 UTC (Fri) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (1 responses)

Considering that Java's sole distinguishing feature, at its introduction, was that it introduced absolutely nothing new of any kind, it's remarkable that Sun succeeded in getting any claims approved in the first place. It's hardly surprising to find that they actually gave up on finding anything legitimate to claim, and just made shit up. What's surprising, really, under current circumstances, is that the court seems able to discern the difference. Somebody just a little too perspicacious will need to be rotated out of his or her position of responsibility after this, or sanity could begin to prevail in other patent cases.

The real mysteries are (1) how a company with as many bright bulbs as Google ever got mired in Java in the first place, and (2) how they will ever hoist Android out. Probably they will end up having to introduce (say) Replicant, to replace Android wholesale, and write off the whole Java/Dalvik debacle to experience. But will anybody learn from it?

Somebody at Oracle, at least, had the sound technical sense to eject the original perpetrator at first opportunity. Destroying a major industrial computer firm in only a few years is quite a career accomplishment, but one you'd prefer to see reprised at somebody else's company.

Oracle v. Google - the new wrestling dinosaur newts

Posted Jun 25, 2011 15:34 UTC (Sat) by oblio (guest, #33465) [Link]

"The real mysteries are (1) how a company with as many bright bulbs as Google ever got mired in Java in the first place, and (2) how they will ever hoist Android out. "

You're creating a new platform. What is the first thing you want?
a) developers
b) developers
c) developers
d) all of the above

Groklaw misled concerning the status of those 'rejections' and didn't even count the claims correctly

Posted Jun 27, 2011 21:47 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

Groklaw failed to point out in its article that those "rejections" are just so-called "first Office actions" -- totally non-final. I have explained this in my analysis of the status of those reexaminations. At this stage of the game even the i4i patent was "rejected" but we all know how that case ended. Same with the FireStar patent for which Red Hat paid several million dollars in a settlement.

Groklaw's analysis is not only misleading but also poorly researched. Obviously Groklaw wants to downplay the threat Oracle's lawsuit represents to Android. Therefore, if Groklaw had understood that two of Oracle's patents are completely lost based on the preliminary results in terms of all actually asserted claims being considered (for now) "rejected", it would certainly have emphasized that fact. But Groklaw came from the false assumption that Oracle asserted all claims of all patents. Actually, Groklaw itself published at least two court filings that show which 132 patent claims Oracle's formal infringement contentions related to.