|
|
|
| Authored by: FreeChief on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 11:30 PM EDT |
With the image of glitter and rainbows, is that even an
insult?
Anyone who likes The Prince of Darkness^W^W^W^^W Larry
Ellison probably thinks so.
— Programmer in Chief and
Rainbow Glitter Pony
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 04:07 AM EDT |
i commented yesterday that sun's official word was that blogs will be kept
forever accessible.
i also remember that at the time of networks patent case, groklaw did prior art,
Schwartz said that sun's portfolio of patents was defensive only. i think they
did a patent pledge at the time. also a interesting post as to why sun patented
things selectively, reduced rate of filing patents, cost of patent maintenance
fees, and quality of patents.
also look at sun's corporate counsel's blog. only one of the type with
information on coe blog as official, others personal. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 05:46 AM EDT |
Acquiescence is a legal term, Google it.
If you look at the case from the acquiescence point of view.
Then, what Google was doing, seemed from Google's point of
view the right thing to do, because of not only what SUN did
with them (nothing but approval), but the same that SUN did
with Harmony, or any other JAVA fork (that only needed to
use the word JAVA as their product to trigger a need for a
SUN license).
From the pure Law of Agency point of view (another legal
term, Google it too), where 3rd parties, operating from a
belief due to the actions or non-actions of an agent of the
principal (Sun), do something, contrary to the principal's
desires (Oracle in this case), then the 3rd party can not be
harmed (depending on the facts on a case by case basis).
Sun clearly acted, via it's CEO, and others, in ways that
lead the whole world to thinking the way it did. Oracle has
a different opinion now. The danger is, that going forward,
Oracle might be able to reverse the Law of Agency and
acquiescence status of their JAVA mistake, but only for code
that is new going forward maybe? The methods and concepts
being ignored by SUN, via acquiescence, is MORE damage to
the Oracle case (future protection of JAVA IP) due to the
nature of how broad that the methods and concepts can be,
even for code going forward.
Acquiescence
Law of Agency
Note = I wanted to see a "SCO" defense on Law of Agency
facts too, but the lawyers for the defense in SCO, seemed to
want to get dirty in the IP all the time (maybe more
billable hours and confusion in the IP world by definition,
where they got bogged down in where they could not see the
forest thru the trees.., vs looking at it more clearly from
a Law School 101 perspective, and on a plane that would be
easy for the judge and jury to understand. Same applies
here, and I am glad the judge sees what is going on here.
Google is not unlike any customer of the IP, anyone who buys
a phone that SUN allowed to be built and sold. Sun approved
of Android (CEO said so). So, how can Google and their
customers (Android users) be harmed now?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
