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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Did they need a license? | 52 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Did they need a license?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT
What is there to license?

They didn't use Sun code.
They implemented APIs based on specs detailed in a
copyrighted document, but didn't reproduce that document,
hence no copyright infringement (unless copyrights now
extend to abstract ideas as Oracle seem to want).

I'm pretty sure harmony doesn't have a license, as there is
no licensable IP being used. Just like Oracle doesn't have a
license for the colour Yellow.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Re: Harmony
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT
Hmmm, that would be a prejudicial statement to make to the jury.

Apache certainly had rights that they could grant. They created an independent
implementation. Sun and Oracle were involved in the oversight, never
challenging the right to make that independent implementation.

Years later Oracle want to give the jury the impression that Apache created an
outlaw implementation that has just been brought to their attention.

If Oracle wants such a statement, they should use their time to put a witness
from Apache on the stand. I'm certain that's a basket of dirty laundry that
they don't want dumped in front of the jury. Especially Oracle's early
position, pre-Sun, and that Sun reneged on their commitments.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Re: Harmony
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT
Other than the obvious rangeCheck function that was
inadvertently copied and a de minimus infraction, I don't
understand the nature of the copyright violation Oracle is
claiming; unless carry over into the source code of the API
specification's sequence, structure, organisation (SSO )
does not qualify as Scenes a faire. Although, Robert Van
Nest took pains to show that various source codes of
apparently various SSO may be composed from the same API
specification, I suppose an Abstraction-Filtration-
Comparison test (AFC) will be needed to quantify what SSO
elements have been copied. Yet this may all be moot as
follows:

If per Dr. Mark Reinhold's testimony "... APIs can change
like wildfire", then per Ian Al's comment "...the API that
went rushing by just as Harmony took a copy.." might be at
issue". However, reading my fellow Groklawians' commentary
it would seem that Android is a mongrel inheriting
overlaping licensing -- possibly conflicting ? -- rights.

I have read these two open letters by Apache Foundation:
1 ) http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html
2 ) http://apache.org/jcp/sunopenletterfaq.html

As soon as I read the words "... contractually bound to
comply..." , I am reminded of the controversy between Novell
and SCO as to whether the ATA did or did not transfer the
Unix copyrights.

Where some of the API specifications of the 37 packages at
issue have been developed in collaboration ( Java Community
Process, JCP ), then do terms of the Java Specification
Participation Agreement(s) (JSPS ) compel or preclude
transfer of any property rights ?? ie. Are some of the
Harmony libraries, and by inheiritance the Android
Libraries, encumbered ?? -- perhaps favourably ??

Do applicable Apache License(s) and GPL license(s) alter
matters ??

[ 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 )