And now Florian is blaming the judge for misleading the jury. If Judge Alsup would have instructed better the jury, they wouldn't make the mistake of not consider Google guilty. because is totally clear that the jury has made a mistake. The case is totally clear for him.
And he is betting that the judge will say that API's are copyrighteable
If you read my linked article from ArsTechnica the jury foreman is blaming the judge too, but for a much different reason than Mr. Mueller. He says Google was found guilty for infringement on question 1 because the judge's instructions said they must assume the API's were copyrighted. Had the judge not added that stipulation then Google may not have received an infringement finding at all on question 1. Definitely at odds to the slant FOSSPatents put on it.
That may be the reason for Mueller's sudden about-face on how copyrightability might affect the the software industry. Contrary to previous blogs he now acknowledges that copyrighting API's may stifle innovation in some ways. His new solution is to add FRAND requirements, tho he thinks some API's probably shouldn't get copyrighted anyway. . . ???
That may be the reason for Mueller's sudden about-face on how copyrightability might affect the the software industry. Contrary to previous blogs he now acknowledges that copyrighting API's may stifle innovation in some ways. His new solution is to add FRAND requirements, tho he thinks some API's probably shouldn't get copyrighted anyway. . . ???
It was very curious that a FOSS activist didn't daid that API copyrighteability would not affect the software industry.
And now Florian is blaming the judge for misleading the jury. If Judge Alsup would have instructed better the jury, they wouldn't make the mistake of not consider Google guilty. because is totally clear that the jury has made a mistake. The case is totally clear for him.
As I understand it, if the judge and lawyers didn't make any mistakes, then the jury's decision isn't, in itself, directly subject to appeal. Any successful attempt to appeal the case will necessarily depend upon somebody finding an error by the judge or lawyers. So of course, if somebody like Mueller, starts out with the conclusion that the outcome was "unjust", it follows that that person must start looking for evidence that the judge made mistakes.
Today Judge Alsup denied Oracle's request to have Google found guilty as a matter of law, overruling the jury. Oracle argued that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Google was innocent. In the Judge's denial of Oracle's claim he instead openly questioned their primary witnesses' honesty.
"The foregoing is sufficient but it is worth adding that Oracle’s infringement case was presented through Dr. Mitchell. A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions. For this reason, a reasonable jury could have rejected every word of his testimony."
Today Judge Alsup denied Oracle's request to have Google found guilty as a matter of law, overruling the jury. Oracle argued that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Google was innocent. In the Judge's denial of Oracle's claim he instead openly questioned their primary witnesses' honesty.
This quote is even funnier:
Quote:
A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions.
"The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability."
That's a biggie, and pretty much puts this part to rest for now. You can't infringe on what can't be copyrighted. No doubt Oracle will appeal this, tho I'd be surprised to see any appeals on the patent phase which they lost handily.
Ars has an easy read explanation of the decision. In a nutshell it's over for Oracle's goal of biting off a chunk of Android for themselves. IF there's an appeal we're looking at years from now before it's adjudicated. All that Oracle has any hope of seeing from Google is a max $150,000, and likely much less than that. Even Oracle's own damages expert gave no value to RangeCheck.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal jury ruled Wednesday that Google Inc. didn’t infringe on Oracle Corp.’s patents when the Internet-search leader developed its popular Android software for mobile devices.
Wednesday’s verdict comes about two weeks after the same jury, with two additional members, failed to agree on a pivotal issue in Oracle’s copyright-infringement case against Google. As a result, Google faced maximum damages of only $150,000 — not the hundreds of millions of dollars that Oracle was seeking.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the jury, skipping the damages phase that had been originally scheduled. Had Oracle been able to pursue damages, confidential documents detailing how much money Google makes from its Android software might have become public.
The outcome ends, for now, a showdown pitting two Silicon Valley titans in a courtroom duel that brought Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and Google CEO Larry Page to the witness stand during the 5 ½-week trial.
In vindicating Google, the jury delivered a humbling setback to Oracle. The world’s leading maker of database software had accused Google of building Android around Oracle’s copyrighted and patented Java programming system. Oracle inherited the rights to Java in a $7.3 billion acquisition of Sun Microsystems in 2010.
During the copyright phase of the trial, the jury ruled against Google on a key question related to Java’s “application programming interfaces,” or APIs, that provide the blueprints for making much of the software work effectively.
Although the jury found that Google infringed on those APIs, it reached an impasse on whether Google was covered under “fair use” protections in U.S. law. The lack of a fair-use determination hobbled Oracle’s ability to extract huge sums from Google.
The jury found that Android infringed on nine lines of Java coding, but the penalty for that violation is confined to statutory damages no higher than $150,000.
In the second phase of the trial, the jury considered Oracle’s allegations that Android violated two Java patents. The jury said Wednesday that Google had violated neither. The patent case was considered to be worth far less to Oracle than the allegations of copyright infringement.
In a statement, Google said Wednesday’s verdict “was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem.” Oracle countered with a statement asserting it had “presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java.” Oracle didn’t say whether it intended to appeal the jury’s verdict.
Although Alsup dismissed the jury, the case still has a few potential twists.
Google has filed for a mistrial on the API ruling. Google argues that the law doesn’t allow an infringement finding if the fair-use question isn’t answered. If mistrial is granted, the allegations could be re-examined by a new jury.
Alsup also will rule on whether the law even allows APIs to be copyrighted — an issue being closely watched by computer programmers. If Alsup finds APIs can be copyrighted, Oracle could still pursue a portion of Google’s Android profits, but obtaining a large award might still be difficult as long as the fair-use question is unresolved.
A final note, and another embarrassing stab at Oracle. They've been ordered to pay Google $300,000+ towards their legal costs (and already have cut the check)as payment for Google needlessly having to respond to several flawed damage reports submitted by Oracle. Ellison ends up reimbursing Google more in attorney fees than he'll see from their Android lawsuit.
The jury’s ruling was issued on Wednesday in a San Francisco courtroom, according to Bloomberg. Because Google was not found to be infringing upon Oracle’s patents, the jury was immediately dismissed and the third phase of the trial, which would have dealt with damages, was canceled.
Oracle has sought $1 billion in damages for intellectual property theft, and argued in court that Google violated two patented inventions from the Java programming language when it developed the Android platform. The jury previously determined two weeks ago that Google did infringe on Oracle’s Java copyrights by using nine lines of rangeCheck, but couldn’t agree on whether that was considered “fair use.”
Judge William Alsup must still rule on whether the previous infringement found by the jury is valid, as there is a question as to whether the Java application programming interfaces can be copyrighted. The Verge said it is unknown when the judge will make his final decision on the issue, though he does plan to take off the next two days for personal reasons.
If Alsup determines that the structure, sequence and organization of 37 Java APIs are not covered under copyright law, Oracle will receive statutory damages at a maximum of $150,000 per count. But if they are covered under copyright, all three infringement counts found by the jury would be bundled together to be addressed with a new trial, or in appeals court.
Oracle signaled on Wednesday that it plans to continue its legal assault against Google regardless of Wednesday’s decision. The company said it presented “overwhelming evidence” in the trial to show that Google “knew it would fragment and damage Java.”
“We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility,” Oracle’s statement reads.
Ready for the damages that Google was ordered to pay Oracle?
$0. Nada.
On the other hand Oracle still may be required to pay some more of Google's attorney fees in addition to the expert witness fees and additional fees associated with Oracle's flawed damage reports that they've already paid, in excess of $300K so far.
Ready for the damages that Google was ordered to pay Oracle?
$0. Nada.
On the other hand Oracle still may be required to pay some more of Google's attorney fees in addition to the expert witness fees and additional fees associated with Oracle's flawed damage reports that they've already paid, in excess of $300K so far.
This case is absolutely, certainly, undoubtedly NOT finished yet. Oracle submitted a stipulation asking for $0.00 in statutory damages, specifically because they KNEW they were going to appeal, so there was no longer any value in wasting more legal fees putting forward arguments at this lower-level court.
To put a period at the end of this case for now, Google has submitted their bill to the court for Oracle's reimbursement of their legal expenses. How much is Google claiming? Perhaps the cost of another yacht for Larry Ellison: Just north of $4Million
Ellison reportedly paid $200 million for the his 2004 yacht the Rising Sun. Assume it was commissioned at least 3 years earlier. He sold within the last few years to David Geffen. It's the 8th largest yacht in the world.
Apparently Ellison didn't want to be as flashy ???? with a 138 meter yacht so he had an 88 meter yacht commissioned. He went halvesies with Mark Cuban for his new yacht that was completed in 2010. I'm guessing you get a discount when you get two made of the same design.
The new one is surely a lot more modern inside but I like the external design of the old more.
This is what Ellison takes to get to his yacht (assuming the helicopter is in the shop). I bet that's a couple hundred thousand right there.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
And now Florian is blaming the judge for misleading the jury. If Judge Alsup would have instructed better the jury, they wouldn't make the mistake of not consider Google guilty. because is totally clear that the jury has made a mistake. The case is totally clear for him.
And he is betting that the judge will say that API's are copyrighteable
If you read my linked article from ArsTechnica the jury foreman is blaming the judge too, but for a much different reason than Mr. Mueller. He says Google was found guilty for infringement on question 1 because the judge's instructions said they must assume the API's were copyrighted. Had the judge not added that stipulation then Google may not have received an infringement finding at all on question 1. Definitely at odds to the slant FOSSPatents put on it.
That may be the reason for Mueller's sudden about-face on how copyrightability might affect the the software industry. Contrary to previous blogs he now acknowledges that copyrighting API's may stifle innovation in some ways. His new solution is to add FRAND requirements, tho he thinks some API's probably shouldn't get copyrighted anyway. . . ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That may be the reason for Mueller's sudden about-face on how copyrightability might affect the the software industry. Contrary to previous blogs he now acknowledges that copyrighting API's may stifle innovation in some ways. His new solution is to add FRAND requirements, tho he thinks some API's probably shouldn't get copyrighted anyway. . . ???
It was very curious that a FOSS activist didn't daid that API copyrighteability would not affect the software industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
And now Florian is blaming the judge for misleading the jury. If Judge Alsup would have instructed better the jury, they wouldn't make the mistake of not consider Google guilty. because is totally clear that the jury has made a mistake. The case is totally clear for him.
As I understand it, if the judge and lawyers didn't make any mistakes, then the jury's decision isn't, in itself, directly subject to appeal. Any successful attempt to appeal the case will necessarily depend upon somebody finding an error by the judge or lawyers. So of course, if somebody like Mueller, starts out with the conclusion that the outcome was "unjust", it follows that that person must start looking for evidence that the judge made mistakes.
Today Judge Alsup denied Oracle's request to have Google found guilty as a matter of law, overruling the jury. Oracle argued that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Google was innocent. In the Judge's denial of Oracle's claim he instead openly questioned their primary witnesses' honesty.
"The foregoing is sufficient but it is worth adding that Oracle’s infringement case was presented through Dr. Mitchell. A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions. For this reason, a reasonable jury could have rejected every word of his testimony."
... !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Today Judge Alsup denied Oracle's request to have Google found guilty as a matter of law, overruling the jury. Oracle argued that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Google was innocent. In the Judge's denial of Oracle's claim he instead openly questioned their primary witnesses' honesty.
This quote is even funnier:
Quote:
A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions.
The trial that would bury Android has converted in 9 lines of code and 7 test files that have no value
"The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability."
That's a biggie, and pretty much puts this part to rest for now. You can't infringe on what can't be copyrighted. No doubt Oracle will appeal this, tho I'd be surprised to see any appeals on the patent phase which they lost handily.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275
Ars has an easy read explanation of the decision. In a nutshell it's over for Oracle's goal of biting off a chunk of Android for themselves. IF there's an appeal we're looking at years from now before it's adjudicated. All that Oracle has any hope of seeing from Google is a max $150,000, and likely much less than that. Even Oracle's own damages expert gave no value to RangeCheck.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/google-wins-crucial-api-ruling-oracles-case-decimated/
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal jury ruled Wednesday that Google Inc. didn’t infringe on Oracle Corp.’s patents when the Internet-search leader developed its popular Android software for mobile devices.
Wednesday’s verdict comes about two weeks after the same jury, with two additional members, failed to agree on a pivotal issue in Oracle’s copyright-infringement case against Google. As a result, Google faced maximum damages of only $150,000 — not the hundreds of millions of dollars that Oracle was seeking.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the jury, skipping the damages phase that had been originally scheduled. Had Oracle been able to pursue damages, confidential documents detailing how much money Google makes from its Android software might have become public.
The outcome ends, for now, a showdown pitting two Silicon Valley titans in a courtroom duel that brought Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and Google CEO Larry Page to the witness stand during the 5 ½-week trial.
In vindicating Google, the jury delivered a humbling setback to Oracle. The world’s leading maker of database software had accused Google of building Android around Oracle’s copyrighted and patented Java programming system. Oracle inherited the rights to Java in a $7.3 billion acquisition of Sun Microsystems in 2010.
During the copyright phase of the trial, the jury ruled against Google on a key question related to Java’s “application programming interfaces,” or APIs, that provide the blueprints for making much of the software work effectively.
Although the jury found that Google infringed on those APIs, it reached an impasse on whether Google was covered under “fair use” protections in U.S. law. The lack of a fair-use determination hobbled Oracle’s ability to extract huge sums from Google.
The jury found that Android infringed on nine lines of Java coding, but the penalty for that violation is confined to statutory damages no higher than $150,000.
In the second phase of the trial, the jury considered Oracle’s allegations that Android violated two Java patents. The jury said Wednesday that Google had violated neither. The patent case was considered to be worth far less to Oracle than the allegations of copyright infringement.
In a statement, Google said Wednesday’s verdict “was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem.” Oracle countered with a statement asserting it had “presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java.” Oracle didn’t say whether it intended to appeal the jury’s verdict.
Although Alsup dismissed the jury, the case still has a few potential twists.
Google has filed for a mistrial on the API ruling. Google argues that the law doesn’t allow an infringement finding if the fair-use question isn’t answered. If mistrial is granted, the allegations could be re-examined by a new jury.
Alsup also will rule on whether the law even allows APIs to be copyrighted — an issue being closely watched by computer programmers. If Alsup finds APIs can be copyrighted, Oracle could still pursue a portion of Google’s Android profits, but obtaining a large award might still be difficult as long as the fair-use question is unresolved.
A final note, and another embarrassing stab at Oracle. They've been ordered to pay Google $300,000+ towards their legal costs (and already have cut the check) as payment for Google needlessly having to respond to several flawed damage reports submitted by Oracle. Ellison ends up reimbursing Google more in attorney fees than he'll see from their Android lawsuit.
[IMG]http://www.uuom.com/cs/images/signature_Amz.jpg[/IMG]
The jury’s ruling was issued on Wednesday in a San Francisco courtroom, according to Bloomberg. Because Google was not found to be infringing upon Oracle’s patents, the jury was immediately dismissed and the third phase of the trial, which would have dealt with damages, was canceled.
Oracle has sought $1 billion in damages for intellectual property theft, and argued in court that Google violated two patented inventions from the Java programming language when it developed the Android platform. The jury previously determined two weeks ago that Google did infringe on Oracle’s Java copyrights by using nine lines of rangeCheck, but couldn’t agree on whether that was considered “fair use.”
Judge William Alsup must still rule on whether the previous infringement found by the jury is valid, as there is a question as to whether the Java application programming interfaces can be copyrighted. The Verge said it is unknown when the judge will make his final decision on the issue, though he does plan to take off the next two days for personal reasons.
If Alsup determines that the structure, sequence and organization of 37 Java APIs are not covered under copyright law, Oracle will receive statutory damages at a maximum of $150,000 per count. But if they are covered under copyright, all three infringement counts found by the jury would be bundled together to be addressed with a new trial, or in appeals court.
Oracle signaled on Wednesday that it plans to continue its legal assault against Google regardless of Wednesday’s decision. The company said it presented “overwhelming evidence” in the trial to show that Google “knew it would fragment and damage Java.”
“We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility,” Oracle’s statement reads.
Ready for the damages that Google was ordered to pay Oracle?
$0. Nada.
On the other hand Oracle still may be required to pay some more of Google's attorney fees in addition to the expert witness fees and additional fees associated with Oracle's flawed damage reports that they've already paid, in excess of $300K so far.
So much for slam-dunks Mr. Mueller....
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-paying-0-in-statutory-damages-as-oracle-plans-appeal/80407?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Ready for the damages that Google was ordered to pay Oracle?
$0. Nada.
On the other hand Oracle still may be required to pay some more of Google's attorney fees in addition to the expert witness fees and additional fees associated with Oracle's flawed damage reports that they've already paid, in excess of $300K so far.
So much for slam-dunks Mr. Mueller....
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-paying-0-in-statutory-damages-as-oracle-plans-appeal/80407?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
This case is absolutely, certainly, undoubtedly NOT finished yet. Oracle submitted a stipulation asking for $0.00 in statutory damages, specifically because they KNEW they were going to appeal, so there was no longer any value in wasting more legal fees putting forward arguments at this lower-level court.
I quite agree. Oracle is going to seek an appeal, with very uncertain chances that it will be granted.
To put a period at the end of this case for now, Google has submitted their bill to the court for Oracle's reimbursement of their legal expenses. How much is Google claiming? Perhaps the cost of another yacht for Larry Ellison: Just north of $4Million
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1216.pdf
A $4 million yacht isn't expensive enough to taxi him to his actual yacht. He easily spend more on yearly maintainance for a super yacht.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
A $4 million yacht isn't expensive enough to taxi him to his actual yacht. He easily spend more on yearly maintainance for a super yacht.
I stand corrected
Ellison reportedly paid $200 million for the his 2004 yacht the Rising Sun. Assume it was commissioned at least 3 years earlier. He sold within the last few years to David Geffen. It's the 8th largest yacht in the world.
Apparently Ellison didn't want to be as flashy ???? with a 138 meter yacht so he had an 88 meter yacht commissioned. He went halvesies with Mark Cuban for his new yacht that was completed in 2010. I'm guessing you get a discount when you get two made of the same design.
The new one is surely a lot more modern inside but I like the external design of the old more.
This is what Ellison takes to get to his yacht (assuming the helicopter is in the shop). I bet that's a couple hundred thousand right there.