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
Ruffing | 687 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Summary of Positions
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT
I would suggest it is Oracle that has moved.
Just like SCO did before them.

Google is merely defending itself.
The defence is a function of the attack.
Ask any boxer.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ruffing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 03:26 PM EDT
Basically Google has said that Oracle has not shown that Oracle has copyrights to each individual API contained in those 37 'packages'. Google was very nice in in waiting as I think Google has been ruffing . Obvious in hindsight, but now that it has been played, Google has been hinting at this for a long time. Hence, now we know why Google kept raising the "de minimis" defense since it works when you have the complete Java language not just the essential subset of APIs.

Now Oracle is in the hard place because it rested without proving that they hold the individual API copyrights. Already Oracle has had to drop some APIs and perhaps more are also need to be dropped. Also, now Google probably does not have to question if each individual API can be copyrighted - which is good for them.

Now Google can just focus on the documentation copyright. That is not easy since a lot is probably computer generated facts.

[ 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 )