|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
Oracle USA did not accuse Google with copying or reproduction
of the *interface
specification*.
Actually, they did.
There is a list of what Oracle is accusing in docket 899-1, and it
states that "Oracle alleges that Google copied an estimated 103,400 lines1 from
the Java API
specifications into Android’s documentation." ---
"When I
say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
If he is called back, any public statements from him may not be too
comfortable to deal with in the Court Room.
Either he expects his role is
over.... or he's rather careless with an on-going Court Case.
Judging by
SCOG public statements: BSF sure seems to get a lot of this kind of
personality.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
| IIUC, the specification only has "thin protection" which means Oracle has to
show verbatim copying, not just similarity. They did not so I expect this will
be a slam dunk for Google but this case is funny so my expectations may be
dashed.
Also, as Steve says/implies above, this has to do with jury
questions about copying documentation. The documentation is the written
specifications. IIRC, Oracle only showed three examples of copying and none of
those three were verbatim so I think this should be an easy win for Google, but
you never know for sure until the opera lady sings and all appeals have been
exhausted.
---
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: Ian Al on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
This issue can be seen in the jury instructions:The “compilable
code” does not include the English-language comments you have heard about. Even
though such comments are embedded in the software program, these
English-language comments do not get compiled and are not used by the computer
to perform API functions. Instead, the English-language comments are part of
what I will call the API “documentation,” sometimes referred to as the
“specification,” a term that encompasses all of the English-language comments.
The term “API documentation” includes all content — including English-language
comments as well as method names and class names, declarations, definitions,
parameters, and organization — in the reference document for programmers. Again,
please remember that although these English-language comments appear in the
software program listing, they can be extracted for handy reference in the
guides made available to programmers. So, I will be referring to the “API
compilable code” and to the “API documentation.”
In this trial, you
should use the substantial similarity test for all such comparisons except for
those involving the API documentation, in which case you should use the virtual
identity test. This is because the documentation for the API packages describe
narrow technical functions and it is to be expected that some of the same words
and phrases would likely be used.
Google agrees that it uses the same
names and declarations but contends that its line-by-line implementations are
different (with the exception of the rangeCheck lines), a contention not
disputed by Oracle. Instead, Oracle contends that Google copied the structure,
sequence and organization of the compilable code for the 37 API packages as a
group. Google agrees that the structure, sequence and organization of the 37
accused API packages in Android is substantially the same as the structure,
sequence and organization of the corresponding 37 API packages in
Java.
For purposes of this case, I have determined that the “work as a
whole” means the following: For purposes of Question No. 1 in the Special
Verdict Form, the “work as a whole” constitutes all of the compilable code
associated with all of the 166 API packages (not just the 37) in the registered
work. This excludes the virtual machine.
As to the compilable code for
the 37 Java API packages in question taken as a group:
A. Has Oracle
proven that Google has infringed the overall structure, sequence and
organization of copyrighted works?
So, Question 1 is asking if the
SSO in the whole of the 166 packages as brought out in the Java SE API
Specification has been copied into the Android compilable code. In my capacity
as Special Rapporteur I can use my skill and judgement to rephrase the question
as:
'Has Oracle proven that the Java API documentation SSO in the
compilable code files for the whole 166 packages is virtually identical to the
SSO in the compilable code in the group of 37 packages in Android?'
If
the jury can pull all the threads together and follow the 'work as a whole'
ruling, then it is impossible for Oracle to prove virtual identity. The jury
taking the time they have shows that they are uncomfortable with such a slam
dunk decision. However, McNealy is bang on the button with his assertion that
the work as a whole is the 166 packages in the
Specification.
"There's a difference between the application
programmatic interface and the specification that describes that interface -
and it's the 1100 pages of specification that describe that interface that's at
issue here - even more than the interface."
Of course, he gives
entirely the wrong impression of the case. I expect him to be saying that he
cannot understand how the jury could have got it so wrong, whatever their
verdict.
I have drawn a point out previously which has been reinforced
by the reports in other comments of thousands of API files in Java SE V5 being
under the Apache licence. As the court's jury guidance says 'they can be
extracted for handy reference in the guides made available to programmers'.
The copyright is owned by the writer of the API documentation in the
compilable code files. The Java SE API Specification is copyright (but, see
later) as a whole work of compilation of all those individual copyright works.
Oracle have conceded that 14 API packages contain thousands of
copyrights that they do not own. The judge has asked for the documentation in
the Oracle and Google API compilable files to be assessed. Oracle have conceded
that a significant proportion of the SSO is not their copyright.
Judge
Alsup estabished in front of the jury that Oracle failed in their duty to
establish copyright ownership in other files that were not copyright marked.
They do not own the copyright to the thousands of files that constitute the
'work as a whole' that they are asserting.
One final point that I have
banged on about at length, The Java SE API Specification is not an 1100 page
document. You may point to a selection of html documents on a recent Oracle
website that Oracle claim as a single media. It is not, any more that Groklaw
Newspicks linked pages are part of the Groklaw copyright work as a whole. The
content of those linked pages are not fixed in the Groklaw medium.
There are lots of html links out from the first Oracle
'Specificatiion' html document that lists the 166 packages and all the classes
in alphabetical order. They link out to individual classes and show the
dependencies to other methods and classes in the pile of documents. It is not a
single work. It could only be a single work if all the content was in one html
document or the compilation of html documents was registered as a work of
compilation. Even then, the SSO is not fixed in the media. It is an idea of
class relationships drawn from the html pages.
Any relationship to
classes Oracle do not own is an SSO relationship that they do not own. Have they
established how many of the Oracle copyright class documentation relationships
are with class copyrights they do not own?
I think the judge knew what
he was doing when he required the original documentation in the individual Sun
compilable code files was the 'work as a whole'.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
Its always been my understanding that a CEO is the chief
executive power. So if Mr. Schwartz was the CEO at the
critical and relevant time, isn't it his word that counts?
Assuming Mr. Schwartz had a different position on some key
policys, would that not outweigh or even cancel out, any
positions Mr. McNealy might have represented during his
tenure?
Whenever there is a CEO change, that almost always comes
with sweeping policy changes and often radical breaks with
previous policys. Furthermore is it not the CEO who also
holds the liability? As far as I know board members are not
held liable directly for a corporations daily operations its
always the CEO who is in the firing line.
The notion, as advanced by Mr. Mcnealy , that Mr.
Schwartz's Blog was not representative of SUN's executive
powers positions at the time, is implausible and
noncredible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
However, much of the documentation came from other than SUN
sources, did it not, so maybe there then Google should have
defended with the LAW OF AGENCY (google it) and ACQUIESCENCE
(google that too) defense, along with the copyright defense?
In the USL vs BSDI case (google it), there was evidence of
independent writings of manuals that were allowed to just
happen to Unix where trade secrets were openly published by
apparent or ostensible agents, with AT&T's full approval (or
lack of opposition to the publications).
Did Google's team fall short on the multiple ways to defend,
or do you think that hidden in the defense was a Law of
Agency and Acquiescence defense, all along? And how would
it stand up on Appeal.
We certainly saw via the FCC filings that PJ showed, where
Scott's witness stand testimony on the "blog" issue simply
did not hold water. It's just too bad that Google's team did
not find the same sources to present to the jury and judge.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
