|
Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
Twitter comment from Rachel King : They found for Oracle on 1A, that was the big
one.
Actually, no, that wasn't the big one, given that Alsup actually has to decide
that one. The Jury never had the right to decide if SSO of APIs were
copyrightable, only if they violated copyright if they were copyrightable. They
locked on the defenses, so the judge will likely have to decide on that as well.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Cassandra on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
I must say that I am relieved. And couldn't the Judge render the jury's
inability to answer question 1B moot be deciding that APIs can't be copyrighted
anyway?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shachar on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
I'm not so sure. I don't remember what the purpose of question 4 was, but
wouldn't answering "no" on 4b render the 4a answer irrelevant?
Shachar[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
Van Nest is already moving for a mistrial, so I think I stand correct. They're
going to be happy with this verdict. They can basically get a mistrial, and
then hammer Oracle on a retrial on tall the things they finally took a stance
on, rather than trying to defend against smoke and mirrors and Perry Mason
moments.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
Can timsort even be considered a valid infringement? Sorting algorithms are
mathematical processes - they shouldn't be subject to copyright (If they can
prove literal copying, it's one thing, but I gather the original author of the
method then wrote Google's version, so similarity would be expected. I mean,
every time I write mergesort it looks pretty much the same).
There's some old case that's almost certainly been brought up in this trial,
regarding a book on a system of bookeeping not protecting the system itself -
that should be precedent in Google's favor, since one implementation
(effectively a description in code) of a sorting method should analogously not
protect the general algorithm itself.
Also, it would appear the timsort algorithm doesn't even originate at Oracle
(from a quick perusal of wikipedia), so Oracle can't stop Google from
implementing it in general. Further, the algorithm itself is derivative of older
algorithms.
I gather that Google's code was basically identical to Oracle's for the method,
and that's where the copying claim comes from. Of course, I would find it
hilarious if it turns out Oracle only transplanted the code from Python for the
algorithm...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
If the Judge rules 'no' on 1B, the SSO can't be copywrited, and almost all of
this case goes away. That would mean BSF has lost another case. First SCO, now
Google. But then, I guess they'll cry all the way to the bank.
Do track records like this hurt them in any way?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: complex_number on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:45 AM EDT |
The partial verdict holds Google to have infringed the sequence,
structure and organization of 37 Java APIs through the use of those APIs in
Android. That is the first part of the first question, and it's by far and away
the most important question the jury had to answer at this stage. The Android
documentation was not found to infringe the same APIs, and various smaller
items, except for the nine-line rangeCheck function, were not deemed infringed.
The latter makes no sense to me: there are code files in there that are much
larger than the rangeCheck function, and infringement was so clear that it
shouldn't even have been put before a jury.
The poor old duffer
is spinning a very different line to everyone else.
Rather sad
really
--- Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe
& Everything which is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
Timsort is, in itself, a fairly large and complex piece of
code - much bigger than your typical sorting algorithm.
The rangeCheck method is a really simple utility function
used by it. Any engineer at Google could have rewritten
it in five minutes flat. When notified of the infringement,
they *did* do that.
Even compared to *Timsort* as a whole, rangeCheck is
de minimis. Never mind *Java* as a whole.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 0 - Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
Isnt the claim of fair use essentially a counter claim against the copyright
claim. You would think it is up to google to prove fair use.
If google are found to of violated copyright and can't prove that it was fair
use, surely they are guilty of violating copyright.
Not saying Apis should be copyright able, just a comment on fair use.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|