|
|
|
| Authored by: lnuss on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
--
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnuss on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
--
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnuss on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT |
--
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnuss on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
--
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
I think you can separate Sun's actions placing the LANGUAGE in the public domain
from Sun's action releasing their CODE under the GPL.
I think that is consistent with SUN's action throughout.
Anyone could use or implement the Java Language, but they could not use SUN's
code without a LICENSE. No one could call their Language JAVA (using Sun's
trademarks), unless they met Sun's conditions and they need not use Sun's code
to do that.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
"Is Google suggesting that Sun's commitment and action to make the Java
language (and purported similar action with respect to the APIs) available under
an open source license the same as placing those items in the public
domain."
How do you fix a language in a tangable form?
I would say that it doesn't matter what SUN's intentions were with regards to
the Java *language*. How do you copyright a language? Not words in the
language, not a description of the language, but the *language* itself?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
Tweets so far https://twitter.com/
#!/Feldegast
Rachel King @ZDNetRachel
Judge Alsup gives shout out to public
& press for being
quiet throughout proceedings so far. Guess the loud
typing
has toned down
BrandonBailey @BrandonBailey
A juror asked to
be excused, saying Oracle Google trial is
complicating her life .. talks to
judge & attys; looks like
she's staying for now---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT
- Many thanks - been relying on these for my "fix" - great work n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT
- a new low from CNET? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
- also.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT
- also.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- also.. - Authored by: s65_sean on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT
- Java is GIMUNGOUS - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- Glitch in the matrix - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT
- Jacobs completes rebuttal - Authored by: feldegast on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- jury instruction might take 45 minutes ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- The wait begins - Authored by: feldegast on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
My, highly uninformed, guess is that Google does not mean the two terms to be
the same.
'Public Domain' is a legal status ,as to ownership(?), of copyrighted material.
(Does the copyright holder still hold 'ownership' of copyrighted material that
is now in the public domain?)
'Public Dedication' is something else. Not an issue of ownership of copyright,
but of permitted use. In effect, a form of unilateral license.
I am reading Google's argument to be that if the owner of the copyright
dedicates the material to the public, the owner cannot later accuse someone of
infringing if they complied with any conditions of the dedication. The owner
still owns the copyright, and can continue to enforce conditions (if any) it put
on dedication.
I don't read this to be GPL related.
More like estoppel(SP?).
Not a lawyer
JG [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
So... Is that time now forfeit, or does he get to use it to respond to Google's
closing arguments?
Just wondering if it's a tactical thing, or just running out of things to say,
or
wanting to avoid boring the jury...
I'm assuming Oracle can't now take any further part, but would be interested if
anyone can confirm.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
Mitchell argued in court that the function headers before
the function
bodies
in Google's implementation constitute infringement because
they are
verbatim
copies from the API spec.
But verbatim copies of function
signatures occur all the
time in code that
merely uses the API; not
just when someone wants
to re-implement the API itself. For example anyone
deriving
from java.util's
Comparator interface will copy its member's
signature
public
int
compare(Object a, Object b) verbatim from the
API into
their source code. There is no other way to use this API
functionality other than copying the code.
Likewise 3rd party
extensions of the APIs are in
legal limbo too,
consider a subclassing
example like
this, where protected int next(int nbits)
is copied
directly from the API.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
The jury instructions are an awful mess. Why? Because of
the rush to prepare
them. This is a document that really
needs several weeks to a month of back and
fourths and
successive iterations to get right. Then finally when the
judge
strikes the right balance between the two sides,
tempered with his own
judgement, it still wouldn't be done
until properly translated into layman's
language for the
jury. What I read above contained legal terms like "de
minimus" which need a definition.
These jury instructions are far too
complex. There is
simply no way the jury is going to be able to make an
informed decision. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
Clearly if you want individual APIs it has to be a collection, so the contest is
reduced to collectively for the whole registered work.
Significantly easier, once you've decoded the instructions once.
Q1, 37 bunches of compilable code,
out of 166 bunches of compilable code,
as to S S O
names unprotected (and not to be considered)
how many more ways do you want to say names aren't in?
except as an identifier for the SSO.
substantial similarity
Q2. Documentation as to virtual identity
for the whole of the 166 packages
(expect to see same words and phrases.
Q3 Still bothersome, it's hard to argue de minimis
when the "whole work" is defined as the file, will probably
go Googles way on rangeCheck() and comments (A&C), but means Google concede
B. A sop for the loser?
Judge delivers the rest,
code is not copied, (Oracle conceded)
android is not derivative (JVM is not in),
maybe Oracle do get the document SSO, maybe they do not; who did lose on the Big
Fat Manual?
Was there anything else?
Oh yes, Q4....
Judge knows an API is a Concept.
Noun 1.concept - an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific
instances
specific instances of source code, documentation, object code and calling code,
linked by a name
And not just imagination and magic
(though it may yet prove to be a Xi_b^*)
DO you need a license for that?
And so to damages
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
Former Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz testified on behalf of Google in
the Oracle-Google trial http://cnet.co/JdbaW1
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
| For now, it appears that the API Copyright Troll
concept is limited to the particular case of Java, software created corporate
owners (Sun) who chose to make it free and open source, but was then purchased
by a company (Oracle) that has had enormous success in selling licenses and
services for the software it developed. Oracle clearly recognizes the value of
owning something as ubiquitous as Java, but is frustrated by its inability to
profit from it. I hope it stays limited. ---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
Ummmm what happens if there is no unanimous verdict at this phase of the trial?
I can't fathom any way forward if that's the case, except to declare a mistrial
and start over... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hung? - Authored by: s65_sean on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- Hung? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
So Sun CEO says no problem? Yes.
Oracle bys Sun out and tries to change the rules? Yes.
Its open and shut.
Shouldn’t take them long.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- not quite.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT
- not quite.. - Authored by: s65_sean on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- not quite.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- not quite.. - Authored by: PJ on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
| Just in case. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Over an hour - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
Does this sound wise to put in a closing argument? Especially to keep banging
on about it?
It seems like it makes the following points loud and clear:
1) This is all about money, forget all the fluff about fragmentation and
protecting the community.
2) You know that GPL solution we support? Well don't count on us not trying
to ban that if it looks like it might not lead to direct riches. Either that or
we
*forget* about our own licensing terms when it doesn't suit our argument.
3) You know when we were going on about how important the GPL bit about
Google "not giving back"? Well we don't actually want Google giving
stuff
back, it's all about trying to find technicalities to hang them with.
As far as I can see, this really shouldn't pay off for them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
A. Has Google proven that Sun and/or Oracle engaged in conduct
Sun
and/or Oracle knew or should have known would reasonably lead Google to
believe
that it would not need a license to use the structure, sequence, and
organization of the copyrighted compilable code? Seems to share
the burden of proof fairly. P'raps not what the Plaintiff wanted.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
