|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
Oh, if only that mean old judge had let us present all of our damning evidence,
we would have prevailed. Pretty please may we try again?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT |
Google seem sure on VI:
"Of course, if the material reflected in the source code is truly contrary
to the testimony at trial, it could be used to impeach that testimony, and it
need not be on the exhibit list in order to be used in that fashion."
I guess it boils down to their testimony here and they seem sure as to what was
testified.
Interesting!
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT |
:-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
;-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
:-P
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ebook pricing - Authored by: Rhialto on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT
- Ebook pricing - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT
- Ebook pricing - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 10:47 PM EDT
- Ebook pricing - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Ebook pricing - Authored by: Tyro on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT
- Ebook pricing - Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 11:56 PM EDT
- markup and formatting - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT
- Equality in total costs.... or not! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 03:42 AM EDT
- Hey, I will not be ignored! - Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 04:51 AM EDT
- Capital - Authored by: darrellb on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 08:05 AM EDT
- Capital - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT
- Capital - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT
- Capital - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 10:49 PM EDT
- Capital - Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- Completely missing the points being made... - Authored by: MDT on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- Equality in total costs.... or not! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- About 90% of costs relate to physical format - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- Sigh. Charlie is clearly wrong. - Authored by: sgtrock on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- upheld a ban on "push" emails in Apple's iCloud and MobileMe services - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 07:15 AM EDT
- Nokia Swaps Trade Like Junk as Cash Dwindles: Corporate Finance - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Woot! This should be a News Pick - BBC coverage - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- Judge Alsup - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 16 2012 @ 12:56 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
:-|
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mexaly on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 08:03 PM EDT |
Oracle files Chapter 11 the day before the verdict.
---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
I just noticed that in footnote 3 Google references a painting by René
Magritte:
See Baker, 101 U.S. at 102 (“But there is a clear
distinction between the book, as such, and the art which it is intended to
illustrate. The mere statement of the proposition is so evident, that it
requires hardly any argument to support it.”); cf. René Magritte, La trahison
des images.
Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on
Magritte's painting
La trahison des
images:
The picture shows a pipe. Below it, Magritte painted,
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe", French for "This is not a pipe." The painting is not
a pipe, but rather an image of a pipe, which was Magritte's point:
The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my
pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my
picture "This is a pipe," I'd have been
lying!
---
Our job is to remind us that there are more contexts than the one that we’re in
— the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 10:04 PM EDT |
The judge should inform Oracle that Google will need time to review the new
exhibits. Say a six month delay before the trial can be rescheduled. It would
only be fair, and give the patent office longer to invalidate more patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
My prediction: Judge Alsup will order Oracle to describe exactly when each
item became available to Oracle and exactly why it wasn't possible to submit
them before this. Oracle will have until Tuesday to respond, and a failure to
respond or an inadequate response will result in that item being denied. And
Google will probably be given a day to respond to Oracle's statements, just in
case Oracle conveniently forgets that they had the information available much
earlier than they're trying to claim. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 04:38 AM EDT |
When do we get to see the actual Sun copyright documents or compilation of
documents upon which Oracle claims Google infringed. You know, the 'fixed in a
tangible medium of expression bit'? When do we get to see the Sun copyright
tangible medium of expression rather than the one Oracle modified and published
later.
Don't tell me, the website on which they were hosted has gone to the great
interweb in the sky along with the licences and promises originally made by
Sun!
So, if it has died and gone to heaven, why are you suing about it?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 05:08 AM EDT |
Is this incompetence (lack of diligence or panicking due to how poor their
case looks), or closer to malice (a specific strategy to hide submitted evidence
to prevent Google from preparing a proper defence)?
What are the hard rules on dates of document submission?
If they can submit new documents so late before the trial, it seems hardly
worth having submission rules, as it's basically a free for all.
Can we expect more requests for documents during the trial, or even after it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 05:08 AM EDT |
Doesn't a specification of the language "fix[ed] in a tangible medium of
expression" .
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 05:09 AM EDT |
Another very high profile case with [initially] vast sums involved.
Another case with months of pre-trial spent thinking "Is this all you've
got?"
Another case with an attempt to change the claims at the 11th hour.
There is a pattern in the legal strategies that we've observed from BSF. Sadly,
it stinks.
The modus operandi followed by this company appears to be a strategy of
"win by deception". Quite simply, BSF:
1. Hide Their Case
As we witness here, and not for the first time, BSF forward an incomplete or
misleading trial brief and strategy that is carefully worded. They hide or hold
back relevant materials from the opposing party such that no possible
counter-argument can be prepared in time. This leaves them able to make a point
in court for which their opposing counsel has to visibly scramble for an
answer.
2. Play Dirty At Court
As we witnessed in this case, and not for the first time, BSF take documents
that opposing counsel argued were privileged and then made them public. Having
done so, their argument then became, "Well, since these are now in the
public domain, we'll just use them anyway...", talking so fast as to lead
the Court away from the fact that the disclosure was a breach of Court order
[and thus potentially a contempt of court issue]. BSF did something along the
same lines when Darl McBride made public statements which were reported in
various press briefings, only to quote those briefings as evidence to support
their case in SCO vs. IBM.
They seem to "get away with it" on the basis of the fact that with
each case they find themselves in a new court and standing before a judge not
familiar with their practices. The judge, willing to give all parties "the
benefit of the doubt", accepts them as being honest and diligent until
proven otherwise. Thus, they get to rinse-and-repeat this somewhat contemptible
approach.
Maybe this is the whole idea when your case is flimsy. Maybe this is taught in
lawyer school. It just seems to make a mockery of the US Legal system to me.
Let's hope that the Court denies the motion as being unduly prejudicial to
Google.
One quick question for the lawyers. After the debacle with the original Lindholm
email, do you suppose that Robert van Nest would have gone back through the
discovery materials given to Oracle with a fine tooth-comb, looking for anything
else from Lindholm, anything else from anyone else that could contain a
potential smoking bomb? If you were watching Oracle's behavior, would that
encourage you to be ultra-cautious and make 200% sure that you could not be
caught out again? Will Google really be prepared, despite what they might say in
response?
One final question: if Judge Alsup denies this motion, stating that "close
of discovery means close of discovery" and that Oracle's failure to
volunteer this information at the 11th hour is no-one's fault but Oracle, then
obviously he is giving them grounds to appeal the final decision.
Is that what this motion is for?
Did they have a pre-trial conference with Larry Ellison, to be asked the
question: "Are we confident of victory?" only to have to tell him,
"Well, actually, no. This is going to be 50:50 at best." As a result
of this pre-trial review, is it remotely possible that Mr Ellison would have
said, "If that's the case, let's see if we can't get another bite at this.
Get me grounds for an appeal."
Is Oracle's real question to the Court: "Pretty please, can we have grounds
to appeal?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
Really? They want to add "Bray Dep. Ex. 707. 8/12/10 tweet by Tim
Bray" available at http://twitter.com/#!/timbray/statuses/21023407881
3:34 AM - 13 Aug 10
@timbray
Speaking only for myself as an individual of course: [redacted] Oracle.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 06:17 AM EDT |
The thing that always gets me is that "the simple test" for all things
computer related is to remove, strike out, and utterly pretend that there is no
computer involved.
I would like to patent this computer
language.
I would like to copyright this computer
language.
Computer scientists (like myself, as accredited by my BSCS
etc.), such as they might be, are not actually that creative as a class. They
are not even predominantly artistic. Look at how aggressively they cling to the
word "scientist" after all.
So when we name things, and indeed when we
think things up, we more-or-less universally model (e.g. steal from with
whole heart and vigor) the things that exist around us.
Right now, on my
desktop, next to my trash can, sits a computer. On that computer is displayed a
computer desktop with the picture of a computer with a tiny
computer desktop on it, and just below it is a trash can. This
whole area of "property" is horrifically
absurd.
Computer files are files.
Computer languages are languages. When these tautologies fail,
the things described don't work and then fail themselves.
If I cannot
patent a house, and I cannot patent a model of a house, why should I be able to
patent a computer model of a house?
If anything, a real
physical model of a house is harder to make. Likewise a real human
language is bigger and more useful and flexible thing than one for a computer
because computers don't reason or understand so their languages
don't have to carry any subtlety or, I don't know, elan.
Any part
of a computer language that isn't functional isn't, by definition,
functional and so isn't part of a "computer language".
It's the
most inherent of double-blinds. Everything the computer uses in the language is
a priori functional. Everything the computer doesn't use is not part of the
computer language. If this were not so, then every dialect of human used in a
computer language comment would create a distinct new computer
language.
So every element of the computer language that means anything
to the computer is pure functional expression. The computer doesn't necessarily
even maintain the "structure and organization" since there may be padding
between structure elements, or reorganization, or optimization and so forth. And
everything that describes the code, in terms of comments and such is either a
recitation of function or, get this, Wholly Incorrect or
Useless. That is, the comment accurately describes the functional
computer-used part, or by definition it's irrelevant, or it's
wrong.
Here in computer science land we call
irrelevancies and incorrectnesses "noise". That is, its something to be filtered
out and worked around to get to the actual data.
So Oracle's argument is,
essentially, that they, when they were Sun, added enough noise to their
computer language specification to make it non-functional. This
is disproved by the perfectly, provably functional nature of the Android
platform. Simply put, Android uses the functional bits and clearly its function
doesn't depend on the non-functional bits at all. So any non-functional bits of
the Java API were not part of the functional Android entity. At best they were
part of the documentation and so not part of any Android product sold or
marketed. (I bought an Android phone, and never received the
non-functional parts of the API as part of that
purchase.)
Google should hammer the phrase "non-functional bits"
down the throat of every witness and exhibit presented at trial. You know, "can
you show me Mr. Mc'Constantineburg, the non-functional bits of this file that
make it creative art instead of useful computer science?" "How
much of this file is non-functional?" "Why is the arrangement of this structure
non-functional?" "Why is there so much non-functional material in this
computer language?" "What value do you supposed Google received
by using these non-functional bits?" "What is the value of these non-functional
bits to Oracle?" On and on, till someone gets the hint.
So did I stray
from the strike the word computer part? Not as far as you might imagine. Oracle
is trying to selectively strike the computer and functional-or-not
appellations as it suits them. The pretend they matter in the patent half, and
pretend they are irrelevancies in the copyright half. The fact is that the
distinction of "on or in the computer" or not is the greatest irrelevancy. We
computer scientists constantly strive to make the models in the computer match
the real world. That's not a side bet, it's the whole point. We strive to one
day have the world of computers look like Star Trek, where you "program" by
talking to the computer in your normal human language. Were that to happen, were
that goal reached, that consummation achieved, then either the body of law will
have been decided well today, or suddenly every regular human language and
paradigm will be rendered meat for patent protection.
Think about it, if
the precedent is set that computer languages can be patented or copyrighted, and
then someone makes a good English compiler, the whole English language, and all
expressions in it, would be admitted into law as patent eligible. That can not
be right... right? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 08:13 AM EDT |
Here's what would really impress me...
The court dismisses Oracle's motion WITHOUT prejudice,
noting that Oracle hasn't met the burden to argue why their
motion is timely and reasonable, and advising the court
would consider a revised motion addressing this issue.
Of course, given the late date, the court would note that
this would need to be accompanied by a motion for a
continuance to give the court time to read and consider the
motion (which given the tight window for the trial might
mean postponing the trial). Your move, Oracle....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seanlynch on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
You can copyright works written in English, bit you can't copyright
English.
Substitute the language of your choice for 'English', and
you'll get the idea of what's going on. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
I wanted to add this comment late last night, but by the
time I finished the
article I was so sleepy I couldn't keep
my eyes open. I will make my comment
now - before
reading everybody else's comments, at risk of repeating
something already said above...
Oracle doesn't have much chance of
this being accepted,
and it doesn't really matter to them if it is granted.
This
is just a dirty trick on Google. What do you suppose Google
is doing at
this very moment? Obviously, one day before the
trial, they must be extremely
busy, going over all their
material. Then suddenly like a bolt out of the blue
this
request from Oracle arrives. Not only do Google have to stop
everything
to prepare a rebuttal to this, but also develop
contingency plans just in case
some of Oracles requests are
granted. They have no choice, because they need to
be
prepared for any eventuality. Suddenly they have to drop
everything right
at the peak of activity and consider the
implications of the material Oracle
wants to submit, and
potential mitigations.
This under-handed maneuver
will totally break their
concentration at the worst possible moment. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jamis on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
I find is curious that so many lawyers can operate in alternative or parallel
universes and yet the great physicists of the world haven’t proven the existence
of them (universes, not lawyers). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Monday, April 16 2012 @ 02:30 AM EDT |
JAVA API's and classes have some similarities to other object
oriented languages, e.g. C++.
That raises two questions:
1) Is the decision what to "borrow", from what language,
gives rights to the "borrower" over the similar API?
2) If the answer to #1 is yes then can't Google use that to
claim that its "borrowing" from JAVA gives Google the rights? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 16 2012 @ 04:18 AM EDT |
I know judge's replies do not work like that but what if the letter would be
something like this:
"Due to untimely submission, Oracle's motion is DENIED. There was ample
time to
submit the evidence in a timely manner, which Oracle has failed to do.
And one more thing. After reviewing all evidence and briefs by the parties, the
honorable judge has decided that APIs cannot be copyrighted, as a matter of law.
The allotted time for the trial will therefore be shortened to no more than two
weeks."
One can dream...
On a more serious note, a comment on the copyright question. IMO, judge Alsup
scheduled time for the full trial, in order not to delay it any further, while
he
ponders the copyrightability question. It is still possible that the copyright
question would be decided as a matter of law. If decided in favor of Google,
this
would shorten the trial significantly and prevent any kind of injunction. If
decided in favor of Oracle, there is not much to prove, since Google clearly
admits to using the APIs; also, it would set a dangerous precedent in law.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
