|
|
|
| Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 01:37 AM EDT |
| Buck up, it wasn't that bad. The best and possibly only way for the judge to put
the question of fair use before the jury with out prejudicing it is to tell them
the API is copyrightable. Other wise the jury might try to answer that question
themselves, which is what the judge is trying to prevent.
In the mean time
he has basically told Oracle that their claim to control over the API is goose
poop.
Judge: If you have a doc in plain English that says that
this particular method will return the larger of 2 numbers, and you gave that,
looked in textbooks, you would find examples of that very exercise. Teaching
young people in college how to do perform that writing various forms of
code.
And to decide you own every implementation of that code just because
you came up with the idea, that's classic over-reaching.
And
more importantly the judge shows he actually does know some thing about
programming. That is the last thing Oracle will have wanted. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
An additional perspective on the day's developments:
Oracle
technical expert struggles in Android trial, Andy
Rubin begins
testimony
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23
/2969980/oracle-
technical-expert-struggles-android-trial-andy-rubin-begins-
tes
timony
The examples shown in the courtroom, however, all
seemed to
be copied from the Apache Harmony implementation of Java,
rather
than being the direct work of a compromised Google
clean room. When pressed by
Google counsel Robert Van Nest,
Mitchell stated that he was actually not
very familiar
with Apache Harmony himself. Additionally, the report
his
own work was based upon — which included the comparison
of thousands of files —
yielded just twelve files containing
similarities. Of all of the lines of
comparable code,
Mitchell was only able to positively confirm that nine lines
made it onto shipping Android handsets — the nine lines
that comprise
rangeCheck
The article isn't wholly one-sided, but does give some
additional tone to the day's developments.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 05:37 AM EDT |
<< Unlike last week when I said that I felt Google had been
able to stay even with Oracle, today it felt like Oracle was
slowly pulling ahead, especially with the judge. The goof
one of Google's lawyers made in characterizing the Danger
contract was costly.>>
I agree. While I was reading the report I got the feeling
that this is NOT going well for Google. I felt that the
Google Lawyers were not objecting enough during the crosses
of the Witnesses, and generally were very quiet, I don't
know if this is really so however, because I was not there.
I am also getting the feeling the Judge maybe helping Oracle
more than he should. I don't really agree that the Jury
should decide on fair use, before it is clear if API's are
copyrightable or not. I think the Judge is very
uncomfortable on making that ruling because he knows that 17
USC 102(b) is very clear as far as the law goes, also the
respective relvance of Baker v Selden. But imagine if he
ruled on this that the API's are NOT copyrightable at this
time, then the case could be basically finished. All that
would be left would 2 or 3 patents and that is really no big
deal and very easy to rule on. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
