3 ms·
Well, consider the alternative. Suppose Google says, "We have 78,354 instances of prior art, we'd like you to consider each one in turn. If one of them is goo
by jannotti 15y ago
Well, consider the alternative.
Suppose Google says, "We have 78,354 instances of prior art, we'd like you to consider each one in turn. If one of them is good enough, we win. If none are, we lose. Sometime next century."
Since it only takes one piece of prior art for a legitimate defence, it makes sense to say that the defence should only present the best examples.
Limiting the plaintiff does seem a bit harder to justify. If each infringement is legitimate, it seems Oracle should get to try each one. I suppose that if they succeed with these three, they would have a strong case to make saying, "Now we get to try more". So it makes some sense. Try your best examples first, don't waste the court's time and money until you've shown some legitimacy to your claims.
- othermaciej 15y agoYeah, but the judge says all other claims have to be dropped forever, so Oracle never gets to try them. So if someone infringes a lot of your patents, you only ever get to enforce a small subset? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
- tygorius 15y agoNo, the last sentence of the first quote from the judge's order says Oracle can't use any of those claims for existing products. As soon as Oracle comes up with a new product those claims are possible again.