

Oracle v. Google - A judge grounded in the real world - Garbage
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110526082246873

======
grellas
This order represents a good kick in the rear to the parties.

Judge Alsup had suggested that Oracle cuts its claims from 142 to 3. Plainly,
though, the law gives him no authority to force Oracle to do this (or to force
Google to cut back its claims either).

What does he do? Well, he arm twists.

This order says to Oracle, in effect, "you want a quick trial, cut your claims
back radically and keep it focused on the most serious of your claims; if you
insist on your theoretical right to try everything that is legally cognizable,
that is your right and I can't prevent that - _but_ , in that case, I just
_might_ grant Google's motion to stay this entire case while it gets to take
several years before the USPTO hacking away at your claims in re-examination
proceedings."

The message to Oracle in particular: trim your case back radically and you get
the carrot (a quick and expeditious trial focused on the most serious claims
only); else, you just might get the stick (years of delay in getting your
trial as your case gets progressively cut back in a side proceeding). This is
a great illustration of how a strong judge keeps his docket under strict
control. Oracle will not miss the message.

~~~
Natsu
That's one amazing judge.

I wonder how Oracle will fight this? I can't imagine that they'll just meekly
accept this.

~~~
iwwr
Well, if the case hangs around for years, so does the uncertainty about
Android's IP bona fide. What happens to the ecosystem if Oracle wins 5 years
later? It's the judicial equivalent of FUD.

~~~
stanleydrew
Somehow I don't think the uncertainty around this case is keeping too many
people up at night.

If Google lose they will be forced to pay damages and license the infringing
patents. But Google has plenty of money for that.

------
pkteison
This seems terrible. Regardless of what I think of patents, if I ever need the
legal system I don't want to only get as much justice as a judge thinks a jury
has time for.

~~~
stanleydrew
That's only one of the options available to Oracle. Oracle can trim the case
to a size that is manageable, or can wait for the USPTO to reexamine the
claims and perhaps trim it for them.

~~~
pkteison
That's basically the definition of coercion (wikipedia says "forcing another
party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction)
by use of threats, rewards, ..."). It doesn't strike me as justice.

~~~
stanleydrew
Never said it wasn't coercion. But it seems to me that Oracle is attempting to
coerce the court into behaving in a way that may be detrimental to its ability
to provide justice for others. So there's coercion all around.

