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
Oracle v. Google - What's the Deal With the Java Specification License? | 234 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle v. Google - What's the Deal With the Java Specification License?
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 04:55 AM EDT
getting 64GB of ram out of 640million transistors I would consider worthy of a
patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google - What's the Deal With the Java Specification License?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 08:06 AM EDT
So, effectively, the differentiation you are making is the novelty of the
design?

While I agree that putting sum method on a number class is obvious. The
collection of thousands on such classes each with 10 or so methods seems
to have enough quantity to make accidental reproduction unlikely. In this
case the other implementations have the exact same classes and method
names, with the same parameters and functionality. That seems novel,
unless the specification itself was not copy protected. What am I missing?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google - What's the Deal With the Java Specification License?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT
Well, specifications have different levels.

Architect's blueprints from your example, would also have
specifications such as requirements and criteria for different
objects and materials, that, followed by an expert in the
field, are enough to recreate the house from the blueprint,
without the knowledge of the exact materials used by the
blueprint writer.

[ 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 )