Oracle are not uncertain at all, they know what they want, and so far everything
is going exactly the way they want it.
It is because again they "have not been entirely consistent"
in the use of their terms
--
"Oracle: SSO is *not* a separate thing. That's absolutely correct. The 37
packages. The way these cases line up..."
--
Is correct, the SSO is one of the things that is protected by copyright in your
*BOOK* of facts, a compilation, when the work is taken as a whole.
But that whole is not an API, that whole is an API Specification, which is a
Book.
correction: "SSO is *not* a separate thing. That's absolutely correct. The
SSO of these 37 packages. The way these cases line up..."
---
"Oracle:..Those 37 APIs are akin to 37 journal articles,"
---
Well, it's a stretch, but let's say maybe, but so what?, they are accusing the
SSO of the BOOK of being copied into the API, so the statement should have been
correction: 'The SSO of those 37 APIs in our Book are akin to the SSO of the
Headlines on 37 Journal Articles"
Follow the switcheroo
"Look at this slide of our website, next to their website, this SSO is the
same as this SSO" yes, Google admit they copied it.
Ora:"when you look at Android code did you see the same thing?"
Mitchell: "yes, they copied as much as 90% of it"
Ora: "90%? and these nine lines are identical? and these eight files are
identical? And this doesn't look identical, but that's because it is decompiled
form a binary? And these comments, they're identical?"
Mitchell: "Yes that's all copied and it can only have been copied from
our(Suns) source code"
(paraphrase from day6 transcripts)
Look at the book, Look at the code
IM(NS)HO The judge is starting to see.. look at this exchange........
---
Judge: Let me try my question a different way. Let's say we ask the jury 2
questions. "With regard to these 37 packages, did Google copy the
SSO?"
And same question, but documentation.
Let's assume we ask those questions to the jury.
So then, what good is it, if you've already gotten a yes or a no, what does it
add to then say "btw, is the implementation a derivative work of the plain
English of what the method will do"? To my mind, there's no legal
significance to that question. The first 2 questions are all that matter.
---
Oracle want the SSO copyright (with is thin) to be as broad and deep as
possible
1) They plead Google made an exact copy of the 37 APIs in Android code. (look at
these files of code, and these 9 lines of code)
2) They plead that Android Code is derived from the English language
descriptions. (look at our book, now look at their code)
3) They Plead that Googles Book is substantially similar to their book. (look at
our website next to their website)
Nonsense on the face of it is item two, which Judge Alsup observed already,
"is that not asking to gain control of the idea which is expressed in the
work?", and "what does that get you that you aren't already
asking?". so 2) gets' dropped and you are left with 1, and 3)
Boies: I think that's right.
(translated: Yes! Thanks, that's exactly what we're looking for, but you said
it, not me.)
Frankly <redacted>!
For 1) You may be able to 'discern' an exact copy of your SSO in Android
software, but Oracle are 14.9Million lines of code in thousands of files spread
around hundreds of directories of creative expression short of substantial
similarity. Substantial similarity is the test for Source code. and thin
protection for SSO doesn't go that far.
For 3) Well, you know what, there may be something here, there is an SSO, and it
is numerous in it's items, and SSO can be protected. But Oracle keep going to
substantial similarity, and fair use, percentage of copying (IANAL) but I don't
believe substantial similarity is the standard for thin copyright protection for
an SSO. Further when you consider the work as a whole in the context of SSO
certain things are not protected, for example, facts and names.
<Bonk!> the SSO is the names.
And there's the switcheroo again,
lets go and look at the code and seeee what they copied.
I have another thought on the names, but I'm going to post that separately.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
