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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
I generally agree with you | 687 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I generally agree with you
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT
Although IIRC, the documentation was part of Oracle's original complaint and if Google had copied a lot of Oracle's source comments verbatim (which become the documentation) then they would have been liable for infringement. However, there was no verbatim copying. If Oracle wins on the documentation then they will have successfully copyrighted not just one idea, but hundreds.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that one of the biggest holes in Oracle's argument is the dog that didn't bark in the night:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.
Gregory: The dog did nothing in the night-time.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.
Oracle is asking the jury to believe that Sun's objections to Android starting right after November 12, 2007 when the Android SDK was made public. It is preposterous that there would be no written record of their attempts to stem the tide of this massive, wholesale infringement of their precious IP. Oracle knew exactly what Harmony was. They knew perfectly well that Harmony implemented the Java APIs because they were negotiating with Harmony over the use of the TCK.

On November 12, 2007, headlines heralded Google's use of Harmony: Google's Android SDK Bypasses Java ME in Favor of Java Lite and Apache Harmony. Imagine if this headline was about giving away software that was worth millions of dollars to *you*. Wouldn't you jump on this right away? Wouldn't you at the very least retract the public praise for Android you made a week before? Where are the letters and emails that were sent to Google? Where are the minutes from the meetings with Google? Where are the internal documents showing how the company mobilized to nip this massive breach in the bud?

None of that evidence was presented to the jury because none of it exists. Oracle's story contradicts the direct testimony of the CEOs (from that time) of both Sun and Google. It contradicts Sun's public praise for Android. Sure, Oracle's story is possible but they have not given a shred of evidence that would indicate the outrage that must have occurred if Sun really thought Google was giving all of their precious, protected IP away for free. Look at the outrage, frustration, and indignation that has been expressed in the courtroom. Why was none of it expressed back in 2007? Or 2008? Or even 2009? Would *you* have let this outrageous, massive public theft of your property go on uncontested for three years? No. No one would. They knew about it. They told the world they approved of it and they did nothing to stop it.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It doesn't matter how the docs are created...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT
"If Oracle wins on the SSO issue, this becomes moot."

You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

moot/mo͞ot/
Adjective:
Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a
final decision.
Verb:
Raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).

A moot point is one that is subject to uncertainty, still up for debate. Not
one that is of no consequence due to other circumstance (which is what I think
you mean).

The phrase, "That's a moot point", means that's an unproven point.
Unproven points in logical debates are disregarded, however applying the
unproven or questionable properties to other things in different contexts
typically does not have the same effect.

Perhaps I'm incorrect, and you mean to say that if Oracle wins on SSO then this
calls into question the SSO decision. Thanks to your use of 'this' I may arrive
at this interpretation, or some other... However, I still do not think you have
conveyed what you meant to.

[ 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 )