decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Is Slide 5 is an untruth? | 153 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle publishes opening slides
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:29 AM EDT
Interesting they make the GPL case. I have to admit Google being
"afraid" of the GPL and calling it "infecting" really
doesn't help their case. Of course, Oracle is still wrong about the case as a
whole. Android is a completely different non-infringing implementation. But it
was a nice sneaky touch of them to point out the hypocrisy of Google.

They could have gone with the (GNU Classpath) GPL + exception implementation
(which wouldn't have been "infectious" (they couldn't actually have
gone with the Sun/Oracle GPL implementation since that didn't exist at the time
Android was developed).

Also interesting they keep confusing the product "Java" and the
programming language also called "Java". That was a big mistake on
"the java community" part. Very early on there should have been a much
bigger and clearer distinction between the programming language and the
implementation from Sun (especially since there are and were always alternative
implementations, at least since 1998 when GNU Classpath started).

It is far too easy now for Oracle to make this in one big confusing
jumble-mumble, trademarks on "Java", copyrights in "Java",
patents on "Java", while those really are totally different things all
"accidentally" called Java.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle publishes opening slides
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:05 AM EDT
Is this possible contempt?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Is Slide 5 is an untruth?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT
Java is not a Software development environment


bits of java are a stack of development tools

It's the difference between your local auto-service station as a business and
the huge red snap-on tool box they have standing at the back

A Software development environment requires an editor so that you can write
source code.

That could be a simple editor, like ed, or it could be a complex editor like vi,
or a bloated editor like emacs or a full on IDE like eclipse,

AFAIR J2xE, nor J2SDK contain such an thing. Instead you are required to use
the tools supplied with your platform

Happy to be corrected.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Slide 19, Google decide to build Android WITH java
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:27 AM EDT


Google very explicitly decided not to be build android ON java, but on Dalvik

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle publishes opening slides
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT
To be honest this whole case seems extremely weak. All they really have is the
confusion between Java the Oracle product and the programming language java. I
don't know how the jury will interpret this, but to me it all sounds like
"whaaaa! google figured out how to make some money with an idea we had
first and now we would like you to award us some damages because it looks
similar..."

It all seems to come down to whether the jury is able to see that Oracle really
doesn't have anything except trying to make new law that says any implementation
of a (language/api) idea is somehow copyrighted and needs a "license".
I assume the judge will at a certain point explain the difference between idea
(unprotected) and expression (protected). The only problem seems to be that all
people with any real technical background are removed from the jury now :(

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle publishes opening slides
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 09:03 AM EDT
Sneaky, they removed Google from the companies that are part of the JCP and they
forget to mention Google actually uses and contributes to OpenJDK (in fact the
disputed Array sorting algorithm was contributed by Google to OpenJDK).

JCP: http://jcp.org/en/press/news/ec-feature_SE#bloch
OpenJDK array sort contribution:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-July/thread.html#1999

I wonder if Google will point out they also participate in those other things
and are as much part of the java community as any other participant Oracle did
bother to show.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Does contempt of court apply?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 09:34 AM EDT
How far can they ignore the instructions of the judge?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Slide 21 - One of the emails not entered into evidence?
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 10:07 AM EDT
I don't know what is in the full document that is partially obscured in Slide
21, apparently an early document of proposed plans on how to incorporate Java in
Android - but I do see that the "smoking gun" line that is blown up to
big letters and highlighted "Must take license from Sun" (Ooh - Google
knew way back then that their plans would require getting a license! Guilty,
Guilty, Guilty!) is preceded by the line (not highlighted, not blown up)

"Need coffee-cup logo for carrier certifications"

Ok, so this proves exactly what? That Google knew early on that they would have
to negotiate a license from Sun if they want to ... use the Java logo?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Weasly interpretation of "must"
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT
I think I can see Oracle's overambitious interpretation of the word
"must".

What does "must" in "Must take a license from Sun" of slide
21 mean?

Looking at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must we can see there are
numerous different meanings, where at least one would render the 2005 remark by
"Must take a license from Sun" into nothingness, interpreation 1b:
"be urged to".

The "must take a license" phrase to me sounds like a business choice,
i.e. not a legal requirement. In other words, someone thought at the time that
Google were urged to take the Sun licens for business reasons, rather than risk
a cheaper non-Sun option.

There is a large difference between these two interpretations.



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle publishes opening slides
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 12:33 AM EDT
Slide 40 headline: Google Copied Java API Designs Because It
Wanted To Attract Developers To Android

Quote from email:
"We enable developers who are familiar with
programming in Java to leverage their skills to
quickly build Android apps. (highlighted sentence)The APIs
in Android enable developers to build extremely capable
mobile apps that can rival what can be done on
a desktop…."

From the context you can clearly see that the APIs they're
talking about are the Android APIs from the Android
framework, not the Java APIs.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )