Hi folks - well, I got there at about 1:45, which I thought would be cutting it too close, but I was just able to squeeze in and got a seat on the side of the courtroom. It's a big courtroom, with 10 judges sitting at the front, and it was pretty much full, as I said these cases are being followed closely in the patent community.
So, what you want to know is, which way did it go? The judges don't actually say which way they think it should go, but you can kind of get a sense from their questions which way they are leaning. And here's how it seemed to me: out of 10 judges, one (the chief judge) said nothing at all, he literally asked no questions in either the Akamai-Limelight case or in the McKesson-Epic case. So its impossible to have any idea what he's thinking. One judge definitely seemed to have her mind made up for Akamai, and one more seemed to be leaning in that direction. On the other hand, four of them seemed to be more in favor of Limelight. But if it takes 6 judges to have a majority, I can't say for sure that there were 6 in favor of Limelight. There certainly didn't seem to be 6 in favor of Akamai. I asked a couple of the lawyers afterwards what they thought, and they told me that you can't really tell from the questions the judges ask. So don't put any stock in my impressions.
Limelight's lawyer was a lot younger than Akamai's lawyer, but he seemed very sharp and the judges seemed to respect him, for whatever that is worth.
I saw Paul Sagan and Tom Leighton there for Akamai. I didn't see anyone there that I recognized for Limelight, but maybe I just didn't see them - there were a few hundred people there, so I could easily have missed them. Sagan and Leighton were right up front in the first couple of rows.
Well, that's all I have, now we just have to wait for a decision. Last time it took 6 months.
thanks for the info.The waiting goes on.Anyway they seem to have some big names supporting.
Google, EBay, Cisco, Dell Inc., Intel Corp. and Yahoo! Inc. were among companies that supported Limelight. A victory for Akamai would “threaten legitimate commerce” and “complicate already dysfunctional multiparty litigation,” they said in the filing.
Such a ruling would “stifle commerce and place further upward pressure on product costs by allowing for opportunistic litigation in which more and more market participants that touch a multifeature product or system or network are sued together,” the companies said. “Likewise, opportunistic plaintiffs would pursue even more companies to seek cost-of-defense style settlements from each.”
Apple and HTC Corp. each filed papers supporting Limelight, as did the trade groups for Internet retailers and financial services companies, according to the court's docket.