|
|
|
| Authored by: IANALitj on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
I find it interesting that the attorneys for defendant Google are listed in
alphabetical order, while those for plaintiff Oracle America are not.
Michael Jacobs is given first billing, ahead of David Boies.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kuroshima on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
First time doing this, make it wrong text->right text in the
title[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kuroshima on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
Please put a link to the newspick, just in case it scrolls
down the list. Make it clickable, too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Samsung Passes Nokia to Become World’s No. 1 Phone Maker - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Newspicks thread - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT
- Classpath now over 90% of JDK 1.4 [PJ: This is on Sept. 16, 2005] - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 09:08 PM EDT
- Newspicks thread - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 11:49 PM EDT
- Oracle vs. Google: Dead lawsuit walking - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 06:33 AM EDT
- Heh - Authored by: hardmath on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 07:00 AM EDT
- Microsoft backs away from CISPA support, citing privacy - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 08:01 AM EDT
- Microsoft and Barnes n Noble do a deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 08:17 AM EDT
- B&N Settle Nook case with MS :-( - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: kuroshima on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
Post comes transcriptions here. Please format it in HTML, but
post it as plain old text, so PJ can copy it for the archive[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kuroshima on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
Anyone posting on OraGoogle here will have to alphabetize
Oracle's lawyers in all their exhibits, then alphabetize the
exhibits themselves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wouldn't that be violating SSO copyright? - Authored by: Laomedon on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- Off topic thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- canonical threads - Authored by: hardmath on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- An API is... Moot - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 04:21 PM EDT
- An exciting week ahead - Authored by: symbolset on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT
- Oracle vs. Google: Dead lawsuit walking - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 09:13 PM EDT
- The great thing about Groklaw is ... - Authored by: artp on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 10:35 PM EDT
- Markus Kuhn on Patents and Standards - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 06:31 AM EDT
- The 'Data Journalism Handbook' is a free, open-source reference - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 07:11 AM EDT
- Microsoft to Invest in Barnes & Noble's Nook - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 07:59 AM EDT
- Oracle supporting Harmoney - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 09:03 AM EDT
- Nokia shares - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
| I thought we'd hear about Google's Rule-50 motion before jury deliberations,
no?
It will be indeed bad for Oracle's case to be sank by sloppy attorney
represntation, sad.
From what I have read elsewhere on this case, Google
introduced Copyright Office evidence showing that that the Copyright Office
had no record of whatever Oracle (then SUN), claimed to have submitted to
them!
In the second case, the "disk" that Oracle (then SUN), claims to have
submitted was blank!
If this turns out to be true, someone at Oracle and
another at BS&F is gonna get fired.
I wonder what the folks at BS&F
are thinking now, after their failure to check and recheck whatever they were
talking about. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
Is that just dotting and crossing?
Or that the original damages calculations offered do not cover the vicarious?
Is there any significance to the fact it was filed by Mr Van Nest?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
Anybody know what the A stands for?
I note he has no wikipedia page,
and Keker &
Van Nest's page is tagged as "written like an advertisement". Anybody have
the time and knowledge to fix that? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
At some point, the JCK morphed into TCK.
Why?
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
I thought Sco's BLEPP was bad . A briefcase CHOK full O-Sco evidence.
A BLANK CD CHOK full O- Oracle evidence!
Did Sco own the documents too?
This trial is CHOK full of something I can not mention .[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
Oracles expert John Mitchell:
Oracle: So in sum, what would you say about the compatibility?
Dr. John Mitchell: They overlap in concept,
Page 18 Jury instructions...
Another statutory limitation on the scope of a copyright is that copyright never
protects any ... concept,
So Oracles own expert testified that they overlap (the 37APIs) in concept?
which is not protected?
Or am I reading too much into that?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
| Link
I had forgotten about this clean
room implementation.
But, Kaffe is not Java, since they have not done
the
test suite under license, therefore they can
not use the trademark.
From
1996.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
In their motions about instructions to the jury, Oracle presented this
argument:In this case, the SSO of the 37 API packages is manifested,
in part, in a hierarchy of
named packages, classes, methods, and other elements
such as interfaces and fields. Dr.
Reinhold, Chief Java Architect at Oracle,
provided the following example showing the hierarchy
of some of the classes in
the “java.nio.channels” package:
java.nio.channels
-
Object
- Channels
- FileLock
- Pipe
-
SelectionKey
- Selection
-
AbstractInterruptibleChannel
- FileChannel
-
SelectableChannel
-
AbstractSelectableChannel
- DatagramChannel
-
ServerSocketChannel
-
SocketChannel
(RT at 594:2-596:22 (Reinhold); TX 1046 at slide 9 (p.11 of 24).) To
meaningfully evaluate the
SSO of the API packages, the jury will need to
consider the named elements as part of the
structure. Without the named
elements, the upper portions of the hierarchy (everything above the
method
declarations) would be incomprehensible:
As I understand it, the
case is about the copying of an Oracle copyright document, collective work or
compilation to Google's Android.
I am almost completely certain that
the tree diagram did not come from the Java SE API Specification documents on
the recent Oracle webpage because each level is put into its own document. The
chart must be of the directory structure of the part of the hard drive that
contains the thousands of individual .class files or their source code
equivalents.
My first thought was that Windows XP could not have all
those dots in a directory name. That's why I am posting this from Windows XP. I
was wrong in that XP can have a directory name of java.nio.channels.
In the instructions to the jury, the judge gave this definition of a
copyright work:
Copyright automatically exists in a work the moment
it is fixed in any tangible medium of expression, such as putting pen to paper.
The owner of the copyright may then register the copyright by delivering to the
Copyright Office of the Library of Congress a copy of the copyrighted work and
applying via a registration form...
The SSO given in the chart
must be fixed in any tangible medium of expression and that medium of expression
must be the asserted copyright work in the case.
Is that chart the
actual copyright SSO or is it the concept of the file structure as newly
expressed by Reinhold?
The jury are asked to consider all 37 packages
as part of the work as a whole. Again, where is the copyright work from which
the copying took place? That structure does not appear in the Java SE API
Specification. Unless it is registered as a whole work, it only exists in the
directories of developers who download the JDK into their computers. If the 37
appearing in Android are clean room implementations, where is the copyright work
from Sun from which they created their library directories?
The jury
are also asked to consider each package in its own right. The same question
arises: where did Harmony copy the package directory structure from an Oracle
copyright work?
As a final thought, the registrations were dated well
before the purported copying. Was the copyright work, that Harmony copied, in
the registered work? Why would it be? Would Sun have proposed that Harmony
copied all the source code for thousands of class source files in a complete
directory of 166 packages from Sun before doing their clean-room code writing?
How would either party consider that a wise way of working? Sun must
have delivered another copyright work to Harmony in order that Harmony could do
the clean room implementation. Where is it? What were the license terms offered
by Sun to Harmony for the copying of the copyright work? Did Harmony actually
use an early Java SE API Specification and generate the file structure from the
names, ideas and concepts in the document? If so, are the names, ideas and
concepts protected by the copyright of the work?
I'm closing down
Windows now and moving across to my Linux machine.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 04:55 AM EDT |
Mark reports Oracle has agreed to drop its assertions of indirect
infringement from the case. The parties have filed a joint stipulation that
vicarious and contributory copyright infringement will be
dropped
I took that to mean that Oracle are not accusing Google of
inciting developers to use copies of Oracle's work and gaining vicarious
pleasure from the copying. OK, perhaps this legal context demands a different
understanding of the word 'vicarious'.
Mark described this as indirect
copying. Does that mean that only direct copying is left in the case? I would
characterise the copying of Harmony code, names and directory structure by
Google as an indirect copying of Oracle's copyright work (not that it is clear
to me what that copyright work actually is).
If I have got it right
(who shouted 'fat chance'!) would there not have to be an instruction that any
copying from a third party such as Harmony is not in the case, any
more?
That would appear to leave just the test files and the rangeCheck
8 lines (line 9 is '}' and cannot be shown to be copied from
rangeCheck).
If the jury find that Google got the 37 packages from
Harmony, are they still directly copying from Oracle?---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
Microsoft invests in new Barnes & Noble unit, settles
litigation
But whether the new subsidiary will become a stand-alone
public company hasn't been decided
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226702/Microsoft_inve
sts_in_new_Barnes_amp_Noble_unit_settles_litigation?
source=rss_latest_content&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=fe
ed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+computerworld%2Fnews%2Ffeed+%28Latest
+from+Computerworld%29[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
