Oracle Ordered to Reduce Claims Against Google From 132 to 3

From the court document; "Each side may file a five-page (double spaced, twelve-point Times New Roman font, no footnotes, and no attachments) critique..."<p>Methinks the judge has played with lawyers before and seen first-hand their propensity to deliver amazonian briefs. The programmer in me however cannot help but notice that he omitted the size of paper they can use for each "page". Or maybe he assumes it's "legal" - by definition. &#60;g&#62;<p>But I like an accurate spec I do. I wish that all my clients were this precise.

I'm not on Oracle's side in this case, but can someone explain how can a judge just toss out 98% of the claims in a patent case without any explanation other than (apparently) that it will take too long to try them all?

Judge Alsup also ruled in the recent case where Edge Games was trolling EA. Sharp guy, and clearly a low tolerance for BS. <a href="http://boingboing.net/2010/10/05/judge-rules-against.html" rel="nofollow">http://boingboing.net/2010/10/05/judge-rules-against.html</a>

Note from reading carefully and per comments on the post, the "3" may be a typo because the timetable involves reducing the claims from 3 to 20 to 10 or somesuch.<p>In essence, it's clear that the judge wants to pare down the case to the strongest elements from each side using a triage process on both sides. Seems reasonable and not necessarily an indication that the judge is leaning one way or another.

I thought groklaw was being discontinued?

Next time, Oracle will use a court in East Texas...