8 lines
2.1 KiB
Plaintext
8 lines
2.1 KiB
Plaintext
The Smartphone Wars: Oracle lawsuit’s final fizzle
|
|
<p>OK, this is just weird. <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228298/Oracle_agrees_to_zero_damages_in_Google_lawsuit_eyes_appeal">“Oracle agrees to ‘zero’ damages in Google lawsuit, eyes appeal”</a> That vast lawsuit that, according to some idiots (including a few of my commenters), was going to destroy Android and sow the earth with salt in its wake? It’s done – but in a bizarre way that makes me question the sanity of Oracle’s lawyers at Boies Schiller.</p>
|
|
<p><span id="more-4406"></span></p>
|
|
<p>My regulars will recall that I’ve been saying this lawsuit was doomed since day one, a bad joke. Nor was I just handwaving; happens I’m intimately familiar with the case law in this area, because I’ve been involved in a lawsuit with a similar fact pattern. I expected it to end with a whimper, but…Oracle stipulating to zero damages <em>so they can get on with the appeal</em>? </p>
|
|
<p>Ow. My head hurts. What are they thinking they can win on appeal once they’ve conceded that the value of Google’s putative infringement was zero? I suppose it’s possible that they’re trying for an appellate ruling that their APIs are indeed copyrightable so they can use it as a competitive weapon against someone else other than Google, but that’s an extremely unlikely outcome. Alsup’s finding is as near bulletproof as they get – well reasoned, well written, and a very conservative extension of the <em>Altai</em> ruling.</p>
|
|
<p>I can’t make any sense of what Oracle is doing. My wife the attorney can’t make any sense of it. And Judge Alsup apparently can’t either – when both parties agreed to an assessment of zero damages, he asked “Is there a catch I need to be aware of?”</p>
|
|
<p>I dunno, maybe Boies Schiller is huffing the same glue they were during the SCO lawsuit. It’s either that or they’ve got video of the appellate judge buggering a goat. You choose.</p>
|