|
| Authored by: feldegast on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:51 AM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- News picks - Authored by: hans on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
Thank you for your support
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
Memorable tweets from the courtroom
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
IANAL
"While individual names are not protectable on a standalone basis, the
names are protectable as part of the structure, sequence, and organization of
the 37 API packages.”
No, it is the SSO itself that is protectable,
not what is *in* the SSO
P.S would anyone care to point at the Android source code that copied that SSO.
Drop the names dude, they've never been copyrightable anywhere even if you do
choose to organise them by the second number in the zip code and 3rd letter of
the surname.
That's your bit, and it is thin. Very thin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
"In sum, Oracle’s neutral and accurate explanations will be
helpful to the jury in analyzing the four factors."
Neutral and Accurate...right. Am I the only one who had to
chuckle at that?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
I admit I have been spoiled by celluloid characterizations
of how the jury delivers its judgment.. but whoa, that is
one really detailed document. Do all jury members have to
fill one out individually, or is that form filled
collectively by all of them?
The case is pretty complicated. How does the judge and the
court decide whether the jury forms have been competently
filled? How do they determine if it is not some jury member
crossing and placing checks randomly (as is often the case
in long questionnaires).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
Or is it that whenever BSF submits a doc it tends to be long, rambling and light
on facts.
I would love to get a penny for Alsup's thoughts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ... to get a penny? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Not you - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- is it me... - Authored by: jvillain on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
Sorry if I'm stating something obvious, but IANAL, and I
know better than to believe blindly in the fiction Hollywood
tells me is an US trial. On top of that, I'm not from the
United States of America, so some parts of the memeplex are
alien to me. Finally, English is not my native language, and
that makes legal "terms of art" hard for me understand and
use, so please excuse any misuse of legal terms, and please
educate me if I say something stupid. That said, here's my
question:
1.- At the start, there were more than the legal minimum of
jurors, in order to have some spares if one of them fell
ill, etc. What happens to them now? do they take part in the
deliberation? Are they dismissed? If so, how are the jurors
that will make the decision chosen, from the full pool? If
the extra jurors were already removed from the jury , when
did that happen?
2.- What happens if the jury can not reach an unanimous
verdict? Does that mean that they find against the party
with the burden of proof? Does that mean that the trial must
be repeated? What happens if this happens only for some
issues, and not for others? Since some of the parts are
conditional on other parts (Fair use does not come into play
if there is no infringement), what if the jury agrees that
if there is any infringement, it is fair use, but can't
decide if there's infringement?
3.- If the jury finds for Google, can the judge ALSO find
that, as a matter of law, APIs are not subject to copyright?
In that case, would it mean that any appeals would have to
overturn both the jury verdict and the judge's judgement as
a matter of law?
4.- If the jury/judge finds for Google in phases 1 and 2,
then phase 3 would not happen right?
5.- How long can a jury deliberate? While they are
deliberating, I've read that they can submit questions to
the judge, and the judge may consult with the layers on
this. Is this public, meaning that it would be possible for
some of these questions to be reported in this or other
sites? If the judge, after conferring with the lawyers finds
that the lawyers postures are irreconcilable, is he free to
use his own judgement, and disagree with one or both
lawyers?
I'm not asking for legal advice, I just want to understand
what's supposed to be happening in the courtroom. I'm also
happy with a layperson's understanding of this, but please
state if you have some direct experience with this (such as
having served as a juror, or having studied the law)
One Java programmer that is worriedly watching this trial
from the other side of the pond.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jvillain on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
Looking at the 4 Factors that Oracle would like to add to the fair use
instructions, it sure shows how out of date the case law is. Even though the
"NINTH CIRCUIT MANUAL OF MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS" is dated 2007 all of
the cases listed below are from before open source software really exploded. As
such these instructions almost nullify the concept of using open source software
in companies. That is an interesting stand to take for a company that released
code under the GPL and supposedly wants lots of others to use their stuff.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
Jury instruction #31 needs elaboration. The jury should be instructed that if
Google does prove it had a license or if Google does prove that Oracle or Sun
had dedicated elements protected by copyright to the public domain for free and
open use, then Google should not be held liable for copyright infringement.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
I don't see anywhere in the jury instructions that allows the jury to
consider Johnathan Schwartz encouraging and approving the development of
Android.
This also surprised me:
Google had no right to
copy any elements of the Java platform protected by copyright unless it had a
written license to do so from Sun or Oracle or had a written sub-license to do
so from a third party who had a license from Sun or Oracle conferring the right
to grant such sub-licenses.
Permission must be written? I know
copyright transfers in the USA must be written, but does that apply to licenses
as well? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: trevmar on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
Just read an article in "The Register" quoting McNealy:
"We probably got a little too aggressive near the end and probably
open-sourced too much and tried too hard to appease the community and tried too
hard to share," McNealy agreed in 2010, in a fascinating a fascinating
interview with El Reg"
Todays article is at:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/27/schwartz_java_witness_ohnoes/
The interview with McNealy is at:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/mcnealy_sun_and_open_source/page2.html
I also noted this quote:
"Do I have a problem with Larry Ellison buying Sun? No. That's part of the
capitalist system. As soon as we go public we are for sale. Do I have a problem
with him exercising his legal IP rights? No. Would it be how I run and operate?
No. But I was a good capitalist, he's a great capitalist," McNealy told Pg
West 2010 last month."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
II. THE JURY SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED THAT THE NAMES OF JAVA
API PACKAGE ELEMENTS
ARE PROTECTABLE AS PART OF THE
STRUCTURE, SEQUENCE, AND ORGANIZATION OF
THOSE
PACKAGES
Oracle doesn't seem to care about the implications,
should
their wish be granted. Rather, they actually lust after such
an
outcome. They would destroy the software development
industry in their greed
without the slightest concern beyond
their own gain. They must pay for even
trying this! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
If you find Google liable on any copyright
claim, then Oracle
also further contends that Oracle
should be found liable for
contributing liability. A
17
Maybe I shouldn't mention
this, and hope that stays in
there! Don't tell anybody about this... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
The problem with an analogy is with whether or not the listener (reader) has
enough exposure to the subject of the analogy in order to "see" past the details
and grasp the concept that is being expressed. The task for the speaker
(author) is to try and find something that the listener can relate to.
I
think P.J.'s analogy for the Lawyers was very good in covering the concept. But
then, the Lawyers have to explain it in a way that a diverse group of
individuals who form the Jury can understand the concept. This is assuming all
the Lawyers want to reach an agreement on what the topic at hand actually is so
it can be clearly explained.
Like so many others, I will attempt to
explain what an 'API' is. However, I will do that in a response to this post as
I suspect it's likely to be long-winded. A failing I have in attempting to
clearly elucidate on concepts.
I dun wanna "spam" the main thread with
such length.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
the term API “compilable code” refers to
method and class
names, declarations, definitions,
organization, parameters, and implementation
(as well as the
resulting object code) implementing the various API
functions.
I have a problem with a couple of
items...
1.) "organization" - that word just does not belong
there.
2.) "resulting object code" - this is the result of
compilation,
not "compilable code". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- compilable code - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:16 PM EDT |
I find the Task defined by those Instructions excruciatingly
hard. I am pretty sure someone could easily write a PhD paper
derived from those instructions.
Frankly I am shaking my head wondering how a jury of laymen
can possilbly manage this. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
My worst fears have been realized. Under the
circumstances, this is nothing
but a crap shoot - a roll of
the dice, and an abdication of the judge's
responsibility to
make a summary judgement. What are the jury supposed to do
when confronted with this form? If the judge and the lawyers
don't understand
the case, how are the jury supposed to
understand anything? They are given this
form with multiple
choices and all they have to do is put in check
marks...
When confronted with such a thing during exams when we
were
in school, if we inserted check marks at random we
would be almost guaranteed a
mark of 50 percent. A jurist
might automatically think like that... Let's see,
we'll put
a
check mark here, and one there, and are we done yet? No, oh
- we
need a check mark on this line, what should it be? I'm
not sure - maybe that
option... Ok great - we're done in
time for lunch!
And here they are
deciding The future of Android? The
future of Open Source? The future of Google
itself? the
future of my profession? Whether Larry Ellison can afford to
buy a
bigger yacht?
The mistakes I noted in comments above are an indication
that this court doesn't know what it's doing. We have seen
lawyers on both
sides, and witnesses too, saying things that
don't make sense to a programmer.
The judge is hoping that
magically, the jury will come to a decision that
conforms
with his views so that he won't have to make a ruling. The
hope is
then on appeal, it won't have to be retried in front
of a jury. What are the
chances of the judge getting the
outcome he wants? Nil, I would say. This trial
is a
disaster! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
For purposes of Question No. 1 in the Special Verdict Form, the
“work as a whole” constitutes all of the compilable code associated with all of
the API packages (not just the 37) in the registered
work.
1. As to all the compilable code for the 37 Java
API packages in question taken as a group:
A. Has Oracle proven that
Google has infringed the overall structure, sequence and organization of a
copyrighted work owned by Oracle?
The same old question arises.
What is the SSO? Even with the very reasonable decision that the whole of the
166 packages in the API Specification is the whole work, I still cannot see what
it is in the independent implementation of the source code that is a copy of the
SSO of the whole work.
Looking at the question text in detail, I think
my answer would be that only a quarter of the overall structure, sequence and
organization of the 166 package specifications is copied into the Android API
Specification, but that the question specifies the compilable code. So my
copying decision is irrelevant.
Because I cannot understand how the SSO
can be copied from the Specification to the compilable code, my only reasonable
conclusion is that none is copied.
The Java API Specification does not
appear to fit the judge's explanation that, Copyright automatically
exists in a work the moment it is fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
such as putting pen to paper.
The reason for this is that we know
from the trial that the 166 packages are individual 'works' with their own
separate copyrights. Some of those copyrighted works do not belong to Oracle.
The work as a whole is not a work, it is a collection of 166 works. As a
jury member, I think I would want to know from the judge whether 'a copyrighted
work' can be a collection of 160 separately copyrighted works for the purpose of
the question.
I know that many of the packages are not the copyright
of Oracle. The 'work as a whole' is not, exclusively a copyrighted work owned by
Oracle. If the final jury instructions are that very little is proven to
be Oracle copyright as a fact then it would be very hard to view the 'work as a
whole' as a copyright work owned by Oracle.
So, I've got to
Question 1A and I don't know what I would decide! A free lunch is not enough pay
for this work.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
As a sanity check, mentally strike "API" from the jury
instructions and determine whether the instructions still
make sense. In several instances, removing "API" makes the
instructions clearer. Inserting "API" conflates references
and scopes (e.g., "Java package" versus "Java API package
(sic)" versus "Java package for the math API" versus "API
for the Java package for the math API"). heh-heh.
If you are like me, this exercise indicates to you that the
currently worded instructions are not consistently
interpretable. Example, the significance of "API
package" versus "package" versus "package API". I bet
100
people have 100 different explanations. This is one for
the Oxford debating society.
Do the jury members even understand Java declarations, usage, tools, and common
software development processes?
Is "API" used to spice up the discussion? Could "API" be
used de minimus?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jpvlsmv on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
Oracle says (when talking about the SSO of the documentation)
"The structure, sequence, and organization of the documentation involves
equally as many design choices as the implementation does"
right after they talk about how the documentation is generated automatically
based on the structure, sequence, and organization of the source code.
It seems to me that there is absolutely NO choice in the SSO of the
documentation, because that structure is mechanically created by reading in the
.java implmentation files. The only choice that seems to be relevant to this
would be the choice to run "javadoc --output-alphabetically" or
"javadoc --output-insourcecodeorder" or "javadoc
--output-rollthediceorder" (Note that I've made up fictitious names of the
command line options, so I don't infringe the javadoc API's purported copyrights
:) )
I think this is relevant, because if Oracle's argument is accepted, then the
jury could find that one SSO was infringed and the other not. Even though there
is no way for them to be different. "Two bites at the apple"
--Joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
There is an odd typo in in the jury instruction draft 994, page 17
lines
27-28 state:
If you find Google liable on any copyright claim, then
Oracle also further
contends that Oracle should be found liable for contributing
liability.
That second Oracle should probably be Google. Who
proof reads these?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
