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
They are trying to put the cat that SUN let out of the bag back in, after Google, then Harmony. | 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: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT
I think that's exactly where they are going. I think that by using the magic
word "license" they are attempting to create a super-copyright. By
getting admissions that Google people used Sun's documentation they are
attempting to show that Google violated this purported license.

I've never liked the idea of EULAs for standard software. I think they should be
illegal and the rights of the author should be limited to the explicit grant of
rights in copyright. I think the first sale doctrine should apply to standard
software. But as far as I have ever read there is no legal doctrine limiting
this type of licensing to software, it could be applied to books or any other
medium.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

They are trying to put the cat that SUN let out of the bag back in, after Google, then Harmony.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT
They are trying to put the cat that SUN let out of the bag back in, after
Google, then Harmony.

There is a whole empire, that this Google case is all about.

And, Larry (aka Oracle), has trouble with boundries of ownership and power. One
can imagine how all the Harmony users would be on his check list, once he makes
Google fall under his dillusion, then where will he stop? His march over the
continents of this digital landscape called JAVA, and his requirement they buy
the software (at his new price) to have all JAVA be "approved" is what
seems to be the target... and with this target won, comes the power to then
change the game, and then change the license to a more proprietary license (even
if it seems like fiction, what is going on, to some degree by fiction we all
live, and both Larry and Steve Jobs we know both lived by their own fictions).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google - What's the Deal With the Java Specification License?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT
Why is the text on the Oracle slides from the Oracle site all XXX'd out? Why
even
put it up?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google - How Much is the Java Specification License Worth?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
The way I see it Larry E had been worrying about those pesky
open sourcerers over at Harmony having the cheek to make
their own JVM and get away with it by not using his licensed
JXE(TM) & TCK. After all he paid $7.4Bn(?!) for Java. If any
large potential Oracle customer started to use Harmony instead,
Larry E would be lo$ing.

Along comes Google with a fat purse. Pounce. Find a loose thread
in 9 lines of code and 11 test files left in by accident. Tease those
out to a Federal case. I expect Google's attorneys will have clear
printouts of all the relevant licenses for the court. Irrelevant licenses
are not under consideration in this case. The judge is nailing Oracle's
feet to floor over what is a language, an API, a specification, a library,
and he'll be keeping a scorecard of how many times they interchange
those words when they mean another.

[ 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 )