decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
About Compatibility -- Oracle v. World & Dog | 388 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
About Compatibility -- Oracle v. World & Dog
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 12:30 AM EDT
>> I haven't heard anyone talk about
reusable code, about the right of an employee to practice
his trade, about the necessity of having talented employees
who can learn and innovate, or any number of things that are
important to how WE do our work. <<

I don't expect you will hear such. The most important witnesses
seem to be those who make their decisions for financial, legal,
or political reasons. Having to explain the technical reasons
for a business decision is so painful, just look at this court.
The same exclusion principle keeps people who understand
the tech out of the jury.

The SCO case was all about law of contract, who owned the copyrights,
who bought and sold them. No need for any tech knowledge.
This Oracle case is being painted in the same light, as who owned
and sold and bought the copyrights and who needs a license
for them. But because of the litigation industry's exclusion
of technical knowledge the court cannot yet see that the
copyrights in suit are nugatory.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I appreciated that observation - n/t
Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 12:35 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

good points
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 01:28 AM EDT
and well taken....honest craft gets short shrift these days.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

About Compatibility -- Oracle v. World & Dog
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 10:23 AM EDT
When someone can't use 9 lines of code that they wrote, then freedom is truly gone.
I recall Paul Harrison was busted for copying 3 notes. I wonder why the music industry hasn't seen more infringement suits, or do they realise that almost every song will have 3 notes that match another.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

super sekret rangecheck technologie
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT
What sticks in MY craw about that rangecheck function, is that it's 9 lines
long! Any first-year CS student could write the same function. Its trivial and
obvious. It doesn't do anything novel at all.

I don't think I've ever seen a production-quality implementation of any
meaningful algorithm or idea that was only 9 lines long. If it was 100 lines
long, then copying it might have some small significance for infringement.

But either 9 lines long is de minimis, or NOTHING is. It's the equivalent of
copying one sentence from a 500-page novel. Actually more like half of a
sentence.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It is only a fulcrum...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT
..along with the few files and some comments, upon which Oracle can mount their
lever and turn something trivial into earth moving devestation (and $$$$$$$).

If you let them.

It is a traction point and no more.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

An Addendum
Authored by: artp on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 05:18 PM EDT
I was just watching the Extended version of The Lord of The
Rings. John Howe, acknowledged as one of the top Tolkein
illustrators, and Alan Lee, another such, were both hired to
work on the movie because of their background and authority.

In one of the extras describing how the miniatures were
developed, John Howe is telling us about the Zirakzigil set,
where the Endless Stair emerges from Moria at the top of the
Misty Mountains.

He mentions, almost off-hand, that he later redrew the scene
in color because he was so enchanted with it, BUT THAT HE
HAD TRIED NOT TO STEAL ANY OTHER WORK FROM THE MOVIE.

This is beyond ridiculous. The movie would not have had the
beauty that it had if Howe and Lee had not been hired to
apply their expertise to it. This is a clear case where the
creator needs to retain control of his/her work AND
copyright, with only a non-exclusive license given to
whoever want to use it.

Who else could have done what Howe and Lee did with the sets
of that movie?

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )