|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
This is the 4th time I'm posting this but it seems to be both important and
overlooked.
1. The evidence cannot support a finding that
Android’s English-language documentation was copied from the Java API
specifications.
Oracle adduced evidence of precisely three examples of
alleged substantial similarity between Google’s and Oracle’s specifications for
the 37 APIs. A “mere scintilla” of evidence is insufficient to support a jury
verdict. See Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah County, 556 F. 3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.
2005) (quoting Willis v. Marion County Auditor’s Office, 118 F.3d 542, 545 (7th
Cir. 1997)). Oracle’s three examples — out of over 11,000 pages of
specifications (RT 617:2-7 (Reinhold))[6] — cannot support a jury
verdict.
[...] The only evidence in the record relates to these classes;
Oracle did not present evidence on any other classes. Oracle could have, but
didn’t, present evidence of an automated comparison between the Android and Java
documentation as a whole, as it did with the implementing source code. This
absence is telling. It is also grounds to dismiss Oracle’s claim that Android’s
documentation for anything but the CipherInputStream, Cipher, and Pipe classes
infringe Oracle’s specifications for those same classes.
[6]
The 11,000 page figure is the length of the specifications for just the 37 API
packages. The specifications for all 166 API packages of the J2SE 5.0 platform
presumably are several-fold longer, and the size of the J2SE 5.0 platform as a
whole is larger still.
Google's entire motion can be found in the
Groklaw article
here. It
is well worth reading.
When the judge said "big fat manual" I think he was
referring to the 11,000 pages mentioned by Google. Oracle presented only 3
examples of non-verbatim copying out of those 11,000 pages. The judge is a
smart guy. I can't imagine he would say Oracle is going to win on the "big fat
manual" given the paucity of evidence they provided of any copying. IMO he had
to mean that Google was going to win on this point.
Before I read Google's
motion I thought the judge meant Google was going to lose on the big fat manual
because I assumed "big fat" alluded to how much evidence Oracle had showing
substantial similarities in the manuals.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 12:14 AM EDT |
You should not confuse copyright with copyright registration. The
copyright
exists (for items which may be protected) when the author puts it into
tangible
media. A faulty registration, which I believe happened, means
that Oracle
does not have any corroboration from the Copyright Office for
authorship and
date of publication and would have to prove these the hard way.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
