|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 06:27 AM EDT |
Frankly I suspect that he needed to get the parties together like this under
oath and court rules, in order that the actual case could be understood.
There's no reason he would really have been able to make a ruling on the
subject before the trial, as Oracle were intentionally covering up their case
and making it so vague that it couldn't be really understood by a non-
technical subject expert (and even then, with the shifting terminology and
hand waving nonsense it hasn't been easy).
Their case is absurd, and (from what I understand, IANAL), it has taken the
trial so far to bring out some details in order that there could even be a legal
ruling.
This language/spec copyright-on-the-implementation nonsense surely has to
be a point of law, but until Oracle's claims could be properly understood, that
probably wasn't apparent - which is the fault of Oracle, not the judge. I
assume they were hoping to make an emotive case to the jury and win despite
the law.
It's a shame that the jury had to see this stuff, as it's probably very
confusing
and distracting for them. Hopefully they are following well, and not letting the
legal circus distract from their real task.
If they are asked for an advisory opinion or whatever, and the judge is forced
to go against them due to the law, I would guess it would be demoralising,
however it does seem important to keep them involved.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 08:17 AM EDT |
but put him in a controlled setting with an expert observer and defined rules
(Randi et al), and we can clearly see the trickery involved.
There's a lot of sleight of mouth going on here, but I'm sure it will be exposed
by
the process.
(note I have great respect for magicians as entertainers, it's an analogy)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:10 AM EDT |
Why waste the jury's time if the judge might end up deciding that
APIs can't be copyrighted?
Which is exactly the same as saying the
case about patents should be stayed until the USPTO gets its reading glasses on
and properly reads the patents under re-exam.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
Yes! Make them put the entire thing up on a big chart,
even the size of the
wall, if it has to be. Then have the
text that Google supposedly copied in red,
while the rest is
black. Finally, somehow have a reference to the copyright
behind every single definition of each line of that chart.
ie - "The copyright
notice for max() is found in
package/class/file whatever". So then they have a
link to
the copyright notice for the names of individual methods,
but they are
not in dispute. It is only the whole that is
somehow greater than its parts
that Google is accused of
infringing. ...but then, where exactly is the
copyright for
the SSO found, anyhow?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
Perhaps the judge sees his approach as the fastest way to get Oracle to pin
itself down. Now Oracle must at least attempt the ambush before the end of the
trial. The problem I see here for Oracle is that Oracle is not ready to bet the
company on FUD and delay available in this trial. Google has it relatively easy,
their opponent has something to lose, Oracle has billions. Google may be able to
make a clear example for others relatively cheaply hear too.
I even see room for a settlement that pays Google not to search for prior art on
every Oracle software patent and share that with the USPTO. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|