Judge scolds attorneys in Oracle vs. Google patent trial

May 21, 2012 by Glenn Chapman
The judge presiding over a patent trial pitting Oracle against Google scolded rival attorneys on Monday as deliberating jurors grappled with subtleties of references in computer software code.

The judge presiding over a patent trial pitting Oracle against Google scolded rival attorneys on Monday as deliberating jurors grappled with subtleties of references in computer software code.

US William Alsup's patience was tried as and lawyers argued opposite responses to questions focused on a distinction that could shift the verdict.

In notes sent to the judge, the jury asked if numbers are used in code to indicate where to get data but reach a symbol "downstream" in a program is it a numeric or symbolic reference.

Oracle is accusing Google of copying the way Java software uses symbolic references for certain actions in Android code for smartphones and .

Google's defense includes contending it used numbers, not symbols, in Android code.

Predictably, Google lawyers were adamant the jury be told such references are numeric, while Oracle attorneys want to look at them as symbolic.

"I don't agree with either of you," Alsup said after silently mulling the opposing arguments as lawyers waited expectantly.

"So, I will give my own instruction to the jury and you can all preserve your positions for appeal," he continued.

"I'll do my best; you lawyers aren't going to agree on anything."

Alsup brought the jurors in and told them that numeric references don't change into symbolic references because of what happens later in but to be mindful before concluding a reference is numeric at all.

"It doesn't get transmogrified into something else on account of what happens downstream," Alsup said of a numeric reference in instructions.

"But how you determine if it is a numeric reference in the first place, that is an important question."

Oracle is accusing Google of copying the way Java software uses symbolic references for certain actions in Android code for smartphones and tablet computers. Google's defense includes contending it used numbers, not symbols, in Android code.

Alsup then sent jurors back to continue their fifth day of deliberations in the patent phase of the .

The judge then lashed out in what appeared to be frustration.

"I hope both sides learned something from this about patent cases," Alsup said after jurors left the courtroom.

"It is not as easy as you started to think when you brought this lawsuit or started defending this lawsuit," he continued, added that the 'brilliant' ideas lawyers had in strategy sessions were undone by the realities of trial.

"I am pointing my fingers at both of you," the judge said, doing just that. "Whoever loses on this too bad; you will have to take it up with the federal circuit (appeals court)."

Google wants a new trial on the copyright portion of the legal battle being fought with Oracle in San Francisco federal court.

In the first phase of the trial, jurors ruled that Android operating system violated copyrights but deadlocked when it came to the pivotal question of whether it constituted "fair use" that made it acceptable.

If Google's use of copyrighted Java application programming interfaces (APIs) in Android was fair use, Oracle would deserve no damages from the Mountain View, California-based Internet firm under the law.

Google subsequently filed a motion asking Alsup to declare a mistrial in the copyright phase of the trial and have both questions presented to a new jury in a retrial.

Alsup is presiding over a second phase of the trial devoted to claims by Oracle that Google violated Java patents in Android software.

Oracle accused Google of infringing on Java computer programming language patents and copyrights Oracle obtained when it bought Java inventor Sun Microsystems in a $7.4 billion deal in 2009.

Google has denied the claims and said it believes mobile phone makers and other users of its open-source Android operating system are entitled to use the Java technology in dispute.

The Internet titan unveiled the free Android operating system two years before Oracle bought Sun.

Before breaking off deliberations on Monday jurors sent another note, this one hinting that they were having trouble reaching agreement on whether Google was infringing.

"You are basically asking me 'Judge, what is the answer here?'," Alsup told the jury. "That is where the jury comes in."

With the jury gone, Alsup advised attorneys to think about to do if jurors couldn't reach he unanimous decision required by law for a verdict.

"It we have a hung jury on these issues, you all should be thinking about what our next steps are," Alsup said.

Deliberations will continue on Tuesday.

Explore further: Amazon, Simon & Schuster sign book retail deal

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Google violated copyright, but no damages: jury

May 07, 2012

A jury ruled Monday that Google violated copyrights owned by Oracle Corp. for the Android mobile platform, but failed to agree on whether damages should be awarded in the high-profile trial.

Recommended for you

Amazon, Simon & Schuster sign book retail deal

2 hours ago

Amazon has reached a deal with American book publisher Simon & Schuster, the companies said, though the e-commerce giant remains at loggerheads with France's Hachette over e-book pricing.

Facebook sues law firms, claims fraud

13 hours ago

Facebook is suing several law firms that represented a man who claimed he owned half of the social network and was entitled to billions of dollars from the company and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

IBM 3Q disappoints as it sheds 'empty calories'

13 hours ago

IBM disappointed investors Monday, reporting weak revenue growth again and a big charge to shed its costly chipmaking division as the tech giant tries to steer its business toward cloud computing and social-mobile ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
not rated yet May 21, 2012
Wow.
I hadn't realized numerical or symbolic references were patented material.