|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
IANAL, but I think the jury are deciding only facts *of this case*. The facts of
this
case have no direct bearing on facts of other cases, especially as it seems to
be a
highly complex case (the claims have changed so often) which is greatly specific
to the parties involved.
Also, if we make all software free, I insist on making all doughnuts free too,
so I
can afford to buy them on my new (zero) salary.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
| Perhaps you are not a native speaker of the English language, but whatever the
reason, the conclusion you jumped to does not follow from the sentences you
quoted. "Fair use" is a legal term. The judge gave a particularly lucid and
clear explanation of what it means in his instructions to the jury. If this was
the source of your confusion then you might want to go back and read what the
good judge had to say.
Not every use is "fair use". Google went to great
lengths and expense to only use the bare minimum needed to make an
implementation that would be easy for people skilled in writing in the Java
language to use. If the jury decides in Google's favor it will be in a large
part due to the great pains Google went to in order to make sure they didn't
copy any of Oracle's implementation code. Your conclusion that a decision in
favor of Google means that all implementation code can be used without a license
is not just absurd, it is insulting and demeaning because you are belittling
all the hard work Google put into making sure they stayed well within the
boundaries of the law.
---
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 | # ]
|
- Does not compute - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 10:47 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 10:46 PM EDT |
If this case is lost to Oracle, then no software could be free software.
Microsoft's copyrights on Word would cover OpenOffice, and the copyrights on
VisiCalc ©1979 would mean that the world would only have ever had one
spreadsheet program.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 05:52 AM EDT |
"Public interest" in a legal sense is never a straightforward thing to
show. It's usually more about safety etc than economics or competition.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
