We saw in SCOG v World that Boies made a huge bunch of incorrect filings/refilings and revised filings. They tried it again but with a judge that wants Oracle v Google to run on rails (steel rails, like a railroad).
Today Google raised the point that on Monday, Oracle said their “work” was a collective work. That’s in the registrations filed for their copyrights.
“Judge: But Oracle says it’s a collective work.
Google: Section 101 defines them.
Judge: True, it does say that.
Judge: Is a collective work defined, too?
Google: Just above.
Judge: What is your point again?
Google: With copyright of a collective work, you only get coverage of the individual parts if you are the author.
Judge: This came from the copyright registrations?
Google: Both of them.”
So, Oracle has provided no proof that it actually owns the copyrights it is suing over… and Google gets to file a Rule 50 motion (“RULE 50. JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN A JURY TRIAL; RELATED MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; CONDITIONAL RULING
(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law.
(1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
(2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.”)
Here’s an example from the registration of JSE 2:
See, where it says, “Derivative work or compilation
Prior work by claimant and licensed-in components”
So, Oracle has made its case to the court and neglected to prove ownership of the parts of Java SE that they wrote. Big OOPS!
Oracle registered a “compilation” but argued in court about a “collective work”:
“A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.”
They cannot claim Google has violated their copyright without proving they own the part that Google used.
So, Boies and company, besides having a weak case has a case with the bottom missing, just like they did with SCOG v World when it turned out SCOG did not own the copyrights. In addition, USPTO has just accepted one of the patents that Oracle has agreed with prejudice would not be claimed…
After the $millions spent on this spectacle and how weak the case was revealed to be, how embarrassing it must be to find the dots and crosses were not made. One wonders how the judge will rule. Can the case be fixed up? Will it require a retrial because the arguments presented to the jury were all wrong? Will Oracle and Google decide to cut losses and come to an agreement?
This case has been a huge lie from the beginning and the more we got to know the shabbier it became. Oracle should have known better to start and Boies and Co. should have set them straight. Technology is not a matter for the courts. People should just get on with making better stuff and quit wasting resources.
17522
12799
207
3
2
23982 
11887 
11739 
4656 
4286 
1641 
198 
14 
2 
0 
0 
0 
The 50 ruling if Oracle presents the missing paper say they are the owner work the case can still go forwards since the jury was not deceived. If the missing paper work changes who the Owner is then Oracle is screwed.
If Oracle is screwed I will not be happy because we are still without a ruling what the legal state of classes in a programming language is.
I knew that this case would get into the finer points of Copyright law. Most copyright cases don’t end up here.
“The term “compilation” includes collective works.”
Yep a collective work and a compilation terms overlap with each other. So registering case a compilation is still valid. But once you are arguing limited to collective work you need to provide more authorship information. So the registration documentation for the case is right.
Oracle has just missed including some critical backing documents. Oracle can argue Opps we missed include those and win the 50 as long as the will not disagree with what the jury would have believed.
The information presented to the jury was telling jury that Oracle was the owner. If that does not change the jury was still “legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party” you are not required to present every document in a case to the court if it is still agreeing with what the jury are expected to believe.
Of course the problem remains since Java is a collective work different sections of it are independent works so Google might have stepped on someone’s work by what they did with Android. It just might turn out not to be Oracles.
This is why we need a clearer define of work. Collective works are a pain in but since in advance you don’t have to declare where the break in works are either.