|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
It could be my post of yesterday that you are mocking. Let me be clear,
I am
not a lawyer either and I hope that I don't assert that the issues are
obvious.
I presume that if it were as cut and dried as you suggest, the
Court would not
have wasted its time building a record in the dispute.
I read the judge's
instructions on the matter and I find them succinct
and clear as to the issues
and as to what is and isn't being alleged.
The jury may find that there
was no copying, no copying of protected
items, or that the copying was fair use
or de minimis and we're done. We
may even have this phase terminated because of
Oracle's fuzzy
understanding of what Sun registered or that the materials
provided to the
Copyright office were incomplete. Without a valid registration,
as I
understand it, proof of authorship and date of publication is required and
there
are lower limits for claims. The latter bit is a recollection from
25
years back when I was paying attention to the copyright rules as a
songwriter.
The law may have changed or be different when applied to
software. I saw
the instruction on vicarious infringement and I don't
understand how a
programmer's use of Google's documentation infringes
on Oracle's rights, when
Oracle's documentation is not protected for use as
reference. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
"In this connection, the source code that implements the function of the
API is called the “implementation.” The “compilable code” does not include the
English-language comments you have heard about."
An implementation not "the" for source code
And source code *does* contained the English language comments
Object code does not, and is compiled rather than compileable..
Doesn't matter what a jit is or what a jVM does.
Java source, is compiled to java byte code (class files)
It's not good when you don't have accurate Jury instruction at this stage.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
"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"
Yet the document provides no instruction for what may not be protected by
copyright and therefore what google *may* be permitted to copy from the java
platform.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
nowhere is "structure, sequence and organization" defined.
some distinction is drawn between that on the code and that on the
documentation
It is not made clear that they are two separate things or in fact what exactly
it is that is being referred to as the SSO. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
which will be very confusing....
1) is SSO in the code
2) is documentation copied (not SSO of documentation)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Oliver on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
As various witnesses have stated, the names are the SSO. Well
the Structure & Organisation. The Sequence is irrelevant and
so could arguably be compared.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: reiisi on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
Names can be munged with macro preprocessors. Structure can be munged with macro
preprocessors. So can order.
Which I wish some lawyer would discover. SSO is a completely arbitrary argument,
founded in random assumptions and producing random conclusions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
