Google v. Oracle Filings Thus Far

17 thoughts on “Google v. Oracle Filings Thus Far”

1. 6

   Oracle’s Responsive Brief has been filed:

   link to supremecourt.gov
2. 5

   Most likely IPR cert grant this year? Also, note how clear, simple and basic the “Questions Presented” can be [in contrast to hundreds denied].
   1. 5.1

      Question 2 is not as clear as your statement indicates, as it is heavily spun and does not include within its gambit the actual (and necessarily complicated) Fair Use analysis. Taking only the jury’s version because that is the desired End and leaving out the court’s version belies the fact that each used the same Fair Use test.
3. 4

   Great start towards overturning the CAFCs silly decision.
   1. 4.1

      Tis true. Say MM, did you hear the latest Democratic party news?

      link to dailymail.co.uk
4. 3

   Show of hands: how many of you thought that sovereign immunity protected a state university that asserts its patent in court from finding its claims invalidated under §101?

   None of you? Good, you are all more clever than the appellant’s attorney in this case, who wasted the majority of his brief and of his oral argument time flogging this dog of an argument.
   1. 3.1

      Talk about being too dismissive, the argument that you dismiss out of hand here (“At issue, then, is whether GE’s § 101 eligibility challenge is a defense to UFRF’s claim of infringement. We hold that it is.”) has been a topic very much “open” to at least Prof. Hricik (which has its own section of the blog).

      This is NOT to say that I agree with Prof. Hricik’s views on the matter (I have actually stated otherwise), but this is (or at least was) a colorable argument.
   2. 3.2

      A pretty reliable heuristic without knowing much about the issue: the CAFC will decide against the patentee.
      1. 3.2.1

         The simians have learned the lesson of the firehose….
         1. 3.2.1.1

            Hah hah, great reference! Must not let other simians near the bananas.
5. 2

   Definitely massive interest in this one. A lot at stake. A lot.

   Seems like this is hard to resolve without knowing the scope of 101. I don’t think the exceptions can be resolved with copyright law. The expression of an abstract idea, which is what I think Alice would be classified as should be copyrightable.

   The something more is that expression or is that functionally based question?

   Anyway, been awhile since I read about these issues, so I might not know what I am talking about. But it seems to me that the resolution of these copyright issues are intertwined with the exceptions.

   Would a molecule that is product of nature under the exceptions be copyrightable since it does have additional molecules but just ones that the SCOTUS determined to be insignificant differences. But under copyright they wouldn’t be insignificant.
   1. 2.1

      Yes, Night Writer, you are indeed in need of a basics refresher.

      (even if molecules were somehow within the scope of copyright law — they are not — one would still need the foundation of a creative expression, and your hypo as to “product of nature” guarantees that such would be absent)
   2. 2.2

      … further, the professed driver of the Judicial Exceptions – free to use by all – would also equally apply in the copyright context (if not more so, given that copyright exclusion period, while more shallow, is substantially much more longer in time).
      1. 2.2.1

         I think your comments are too dismissive. I think there are some issues there and I don’t think that falling under a judicial exception under patent law necessarily dooms one under copyright law.

         I suspect there are some real issues there. And I suspect that the judicial exceptions would not hold up under examination in the light of copyrights.

         Would Alice be copyrightable? Why or why not? (Also, I get that molecules aren’t copyrightable that wasn’t the point. The point is that molecules that may be determined to be insignificant in terms of functionality for laws of nature or existing in nature may not be insignificant as a form of expression.)

         There are interesting questions there. I just don’t have a couple of hours to figure it out.
         1. 2.2.1.1

            What exactly do you think that I am dismissing that should not be dismissed?
6. 1

   Dennis, there’s one more, from Mozilla et al.
   link to supremecourt.gov
   1. 1.1

      Thanks!

Comments are closed.