Oracle v. Google - A judge grounded in the real world | Hacker News Reader

Oracle v. Google - A judge grounded in the real world

groklaw.net

58 pointsGarbage9 comments

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.

That's one amazing judge.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When Oracle filed their claims they put themselves at the mercy of the same legal system that allows them to file said claims. The judge in this case is simply exercising his authority. You can't have your cake and eat it. And more importantly, this might set a positive precedent for other patent cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com