|
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- arging about --> arguing about (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT
- Update 4 --> Update 5 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- "all Sun won that matters" -> refer to Oracle n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- Might want to move Update 5... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- sliver lining => silver lining - Authored by: attila_the_pun on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT
- converst > converts - Update 7 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- Update title "Updated 4Xs" to "Updated 7Xs" - Authored by: kds on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- Safra Catz -> Safra Katz - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- steady flow of FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- hugh -> huge - Authored by: nsomos on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: moz1959 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- Updated 7X --> Updated 8X (or 9X soon?)(Grin, n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- hugh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 08:14 PM EDT
- It means all Sun won that matters -- Oracle won that... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 08:45 PM EDT
- $6 billion dollar case -> ($6 billion case | 6 billion dollar case) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 07:56 AM EDT
- Oracle v. Google, Monday May 6, 2012 -> May 7, 2012 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:05 AM EDT
- Update 4 -- all SUN won? Should be Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- Updated 7X > Updated 8X - n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
- Berger/Birger - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:15 PM EDT
- SSO: structure, sequence and arrangement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:02 PM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast
Malathi Nayak @MalathiNayak
Alsup is back in his seat. He says
one of the jurors has had
conversations outside the jury regarding the trial
over the
weekend.--- IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- He says one of the jurors has had conversations outside the jury regarding the trial over the we - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- consulted with her patent attorney husband. - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- Google would like judge to interview at least one more juror to see if this has affected their d - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- Jurors now in court, looking serious - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:38 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- "Impasse reached on one issue.." - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - udge will bring in jury to read partial verdict - Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT
- "Google will move for mistrial on Question 1. Van Nest cites case law." - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- Completely Oblivious to what is going on - Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
:-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bird-Like Robot Can Perch on Mobile Targets - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- who-falls-first-rim-or-nokia - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- If APIs cannot have copyright, the GPL is partially moot - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- Dell's Project Sputnik: Developer laptop - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:54 PM EDT
- Meaanwhile "Java 7 arrives for (nearly) all" - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- RIP Maurice Sendak - Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:09 AM EDT
- New Zealand ISP offers access to geo-blocked sites like Netflix - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- Nokia, Rovio launch app partnership for Lumia - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Microsoft to Support ODF 1.2 Open Document Standard in Office 15 - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
:-D
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jkrise on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
Is the patent phase which has apparently started, happening in front of the
jury, or not? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
Judge: [Gives Oracle a little extra time... had said by this
Thursday, but gives them the weekend.]
Note that the Israeli
workweek is usually Sunday through Thursday.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Israeli workweek - Authored by: shachar on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT
- Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT
- Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:52 PM EDT
- Israeli workweek - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Israeli workweek - Authored by: shachar on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT
- Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:17 AM EDT
- Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT
- Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT
- Israeli? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
I suppose she could have ignored him :-)
But I think it would be difficult to spend the weekend with someone and not talk
about what you had been doing all week.
I may be wrong but talking about your courtroom experience without talking about
the case would seem to be reasonable.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
I'm sure Google is happy with the decision the Jury reached.
They had to find guilty on 1A, given the Judge told them to assume the SSO was
copyrightable.
They only found them guilty of Timsort on anything else, and that was a given.
So basically Oracle struck out on everything (including foreclosing fair use
defense, since the Jury didn't decide on it either way).
Now Alsup will have to bite the bullet and go on record about copyrightability
of SSO of APIs.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Goolge Happy : Also, Rachel King oblivious - Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- Yes, this looks very good for Google. - Authored by: Cassandra on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- Goolge Happy - Authored by: shachar on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- Google Happy : Mistrial - Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT
- Goolge Happy - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- An interesting question - how does BSF feel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Meanwhile in the land of Florian - Authored by: complex_number on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:45 AM EDT
- It isn't even Timsort - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:55 AM EDT
- 0 - Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT
- Goolge Happy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:10 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
The biased jury instructions now come home to roost.
The jury felt compelled to find for Oracle, but they couldn't agree on Google's
fair use defense.
Although it would be wasteful, I think a mistrial is the best possible outcome
here. This jury is completely tainted because Judge Alsup didn't decide the
copyrightability question before trial. If he proceeds with the rest of the
trial, its going to be a disaster either way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
Question 1A is irrelevant given the jury instructions. It was practically a
directed verdict of fact. But a determination based on Law by the judge will be
critical.
Question 4A is more important than 1A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
Rachel King ‏ @ZDNetRachel
Judge: Unless court can give verdict on 1B in favor of Oracle, there's nothing
except one line of statutory damages
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
So what is the likely amount of damages for using a few lines of code, now
removed? Less than the cost to Oracle of that part of the trial, perhaps?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- timsort? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:16 PM EDT
- IIRC their own expert valued it at $0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- timsort? - Authored by: DannyB on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT
- timsort? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- timsort? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:40 PM EDT
|
Authored by: shachar on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
Looking at the Jury's verdict, they found more or less along the lines of what I
thought a reasonable jury would based on the questions as asked. This, to me,
says that mirror_slap made an amazing job of reflecting to us what the jury was
seeing at the courtroom.
So, huge kudus.
Shachar[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap - hear hear!! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- Seconded! (n/t) - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap - Authored by: joel on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- all thanks should go to PJ and Groklaw - Authored by: mirrorslap on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:13 PM EDT
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap - Authored by: Balance on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:20 PM EDT
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:45 AM EDT
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap - Authored by: snakebitehurts on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:53 AM EDT
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 04:12 PM EDT
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- Huge kudus to mirror_slap - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
Caleb Garling ‏ @CalebGarling
"Let's take a closer look at the word 'invention.'" Did someone put
LSD in my coffee? I'm in a federal courtroom, right?
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
It sounds like Google is pushing for a mistrial, but if the Judge finds for
Google on SSO, then all questions are answered and off we go for an appeal. Only
needing a retrial if the Judge is overturned on appeal.
Since the SSO issue is so controversial might the judge adopt the reasoning of
the EU court and kick it upstairs for a legal decision?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It makes sense - Google now know the API play Oracle are trying- next time round better prepared - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- Google argues you can't have a partial answer on question one - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT
- I'm Confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- I'm Confused - Authored by: xtifr on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- I'm Confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- I'm Confused - Authored by: Ed L. on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 11:52 PM EDT
- I'm Confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT
- I'm Confused - Authored by: eric76 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- I'm Confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- Google is merely keeping their options open - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 08:43 PM EDT
- Since the SSO issue is so controversial? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:42 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
Apparently said jury didn't notice that the person she was talking to could have
been referring to copyrights and not patents. Seems to me like she might not
have been able to tell the difference between copyrights and patents.
Additionally she might not able to separate outside influence from her decision
as juror. Either way, this suggests to me that the jury in this trial is already
contaminated with invalid information.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
a: Yes - So Google proved that Sun's conduct led them to
believe they would not reasonably need a licence but..
b: No - They did not rely on this info?
I don't understand.
It seems to me that a:No b:Yes would be a more reasonable
conclusion. BTW - thanks for this sight. It is awesome.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
It seems to me (IAMAL, of course) as if the verdict on 4B indicates that Google
could have done better there. Surely, they could have asked one of their top
level people whether they were aware of Jonathon Schwartz's posting and whether
it affected their decision to proceed. "Why no, the idea that they might
claim a copyright violation on the APIs was so far-fetched that we were not
worried about proceeding on that ground, Jonathan's posting simply confirmed
that he lived in the same universe as us."
Perhaps they couldn't afford to spend the time for this minor point.
John Macdonald[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
This is actually a good verdict for Google. The nine lines of code were copied.
Doh... That they found no copying on the docs etc. is good.
On 1B, it is no wonder the jury hung. They were told SSO was copyright, and the
answer to 1A was obviously yes. But any reasonable person can see that if it is
copyrightable, then what Google did must be allowed under fair use. Otherwise
innovation would grind to a halt. But the instructions on fair use rule out
fair use - given the instructions they should have returned a no on fair use.
At least this provides some reassurance that common people are not so dumb.
Regards,
-Jeremy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
On the issue of damages, Oracle counsel David Boies stated that Oracle should be
owed a portion of Android profits given the rangeCheck infringement, a pivot
from earlier statements that it was expecting just statutory damages for this
portion of its accusations. Judge Alsup disregarded this almost immediately,
stating that there should be just one line of statutory damages going to the
jury, which would result in a much smaller number than Oracle had hoped to
achieve with its legal action.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
Rachel King ‏ @ZDNetRachel
I see some handshaking going on over on Google side. Technically the shot at a
mistrial is better than nothing at this point, right?
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
Caleb Garling ‏ @CalebGarling
So...SO FAR all Google is liable for is infringing nine lines of code which the
damages report says equals about the price of a ham sandwich
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
Ah -- how sweet to be able to grinningly state something like this.
Regards to judge Alsup.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
On Saturday, May 05 2012 PJ say:
"this made up thing called
SSO"
I did a search back in the filling and the fist time i could
find this acronym used was on April 13 in a answer to the
Judge:
Google's Proposed Findings, [#898], similarly headless and
footless:
2. API specifications, by design, describe the structure,
selection and organization (“SSO”)
On April 16 there was talk of
a Glossary list:
Third:
JA asks for glossary of the top-40
terms that will be used by the jury.
O produces the list
JA: Was this
list agreed to by both parties?
O: Yes, your Honor.
JA: Thank you for
doing that.
On april 17 again:
Handouts are given
to the jury. One is a timeline and the other is a glossary of terms. Both have
been stipulated. Each is a single page.
On April 27 there are
filling from Oracle; one of them is
Exhibit 2 (glossary)
(PDF)
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1002-2 Filed04/28/12
But checking
this Exhibit; there is no SSO mentioned
Is this not the same list as handed
out to the jury?
/Arthur
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
They are to teach the jury about "this converts symbolic references into
pointers"...
Really?
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
I mean, really, resolving symbolic references?
and 'static initialization of arrays'?
Symbolic references is dynamic linking 101.
I know guys who used to do this stuff on a Commodore 64 with
linked-lists/indirect references and bottom up/top down memory allocation.
(disclaimer I have not and do not care to read the patents, they do not apply to
me in my jurisdiction [..yet])
What planet do these people come from?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
Can someone explain to me why the Judge said he would have approved a strike
to part of Jonathan's testimony? What did he mean by the "spring gun"
comment?
Thanks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Jonathan's Testimony - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- Jonathan's Testimony - Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- Jonathan's Testimony - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- Spring Gun - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
- Jonathan's Testimony - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- He answered a yes/no question with 'opinion'; Oracle failed to Object - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
- spring gun - Authored by: IANALitj on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- Having considered the comments - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:02 AM EDT
- Trick Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Trick Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT
|
Authored by: nola on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
says that the jury already decided on the patent question
Mixed Decision in Google-Oracle Patent
Case[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- bad link - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- Stupid NYT - Authored by: nola on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Stupid NYT - Authored by: IANALitj on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:23 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
Here is a Link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
On 9 lines of de minimis code?
That is not even fishing at the bottom of the barrel,
that is looking for old rusty fishhooks so you can
say you can say you went on a fishing trip.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
Well, my skills as a prophet have been completely discredited. I guessed that
Google would win on the APIs and lose on the documentation. (Which would have
been a hollow victory for Oracle, since the documentation isn't included with
Android itself, leaving them no shot at per-device Android license fees.)
Of course, Google can still win on the APIs if SSO is thrown out, but that
leaves me batting 50:50, best case.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
On 9 lines of de minimis code?
That is not even fishing at the bottom of the barrel,
that is looking for old rusty fishhooks so you can
say you went on a fishing trip.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
The jury
has decided Google is guilty… but was it really qualified to do
so? --- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: calris74 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
The Register:
Partial victory for Oracle in Java case
Although the former
Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz
testified in Google's favor, saying the company never
had a
problem with the Chocolate Factory's implementation of Java,
the jury
seems unswayed
Um, I think the YES for 4a.
Has
Google proven that Sun and/or Oracle engaged
in conduct Sun and/or Oracle knew
or should have known would
reasonably lead Google to believe that it would not
need a
license to use the structure, sequence, and organization of
the
copyrighted compilable code?
Tells me the jury believed Schwartz's
testomony[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
Is the judge allowed to decide that something is fair use? Or can he only
decide that APIs should not be copyrightable, which IMHO, is the correct answer
anyhow?
Also, after that copyright registration kerfluffle, do we know for sure that
statutory damages are available here? I'm assuming yes, but I have to wonder.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
IMO: Oracle = 2nd SCO. At least this judge isn't taking seven years plus to
reach a verdict.
---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
When David Boies starts representing a firm, I go short on
them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
IMHO, the jikes
compiler is a better Java compiler than javac. It's faster, it shows the line
number of an error better, it can suggest a legitimate identifier that's close
to one you've misspelled, and it's far less susceptible to
cascade.
Unfortunately, despite being open source, it hasn't been
updated for the language changes introduced by Java 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7. I still use
it for almost all my Java source files for which Java 1.4 is sufficient. (It
supports asserts but not enums, generics, annotations, etc.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
Google Is
Probably the Big Winner in First Phase of Oracle Trial By Ginny
LaRoe --- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
PR/FUD/Opinion/Jury who cares! Nothing.
Bottom line Judge Alsup decides and nothing is done till he delivers his view:
At the moment..
"zero finding of copyright liability" *so* far*.
So Far!!
Yes sure, I hope that Judge Alsup aligns himself with the rest of the universe,
but there are 4 rain forests worth of briefings to get through and to date a
history of alignment with plaintiff point of view.
And Yes, if Google don't get the win, then Van Nest is going to get a mistrial,
but that just means it all counts for nothing and the whole show starts all over
again.
Here's the thing, before we go there, and heck why not before we even got to
phase 2 or 3, why does somebody not force someone to sit down with a box of
Highlighters, one Pink, one Yellow, one Green.
PINK: This is what they copied (My Stuff)
YELLOW: This is where they copied it to (Their Stuff)
GREEN: This is not protected Stuff
Applies to patents and to copyright.
Isn't that what evidence is supposed to be about?
For all the demands to 'show me the tangible expression', let's be done with
loose 'it's in here' answers.
Circle it in NEON Blue Highlighting pen,.
So far in the copyright phase I have seen no actual evidence, I've even annoyed
people on GL for actually supporting the idea that SSO might even actually be
real and cognizable (if you squint hard enough) in docs and code.
But come on, when is someone actually going to point to it and go "Right
THERE! See it RED, YELLOW, GREEN?" actual distinguishable evidence.
Is that not the whole point of finding of fact?
It's about time the lawyers/judge cut the cr........ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
Android actually delivered that glorious "write once run anywhere" to
the mobile space.
You can program in normal sane Java and use almost anything written for JavaSE
with no problems (of course within bounds of reasonable).
On the other hand, Sun's own JavaME was anything but "normal" Java.
Literally nothing could be reused, I needed to rewrite everything from scratch.
And I am not talking about fancy things, even HashMap was not there. "Write
once run anywhere" my a....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 08:50 PM EDT |
The jury DID NOT reach a conclusion as to Google *improperly* using Oracle /
Sun's code.
To Google is liable IF AND ONLY IF BOTH 1)They used Sun/Oracle's code AND 2)They
did not have a valid defense / reason for doing so (fair use). The jury
returned true on 1) and NULL on 2) and as a result the entire return is NULL.
Google used the Java API. But you knew that already. The jury reached no
conclusion that they were liable to Oracle / Sun as a result.
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
After the SCO saga I formed the opinion that the average share market investor
must have the approximate intelligence of a small rodent. After every setback
SCO's share price would bizarrely rise. I would be interesting to see whether
Oracle/Google share owners are collectively as stupid. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
If the jury doesn't back you - tell a lie
Lest the press not there attack you - tell a lie
If you whole case is appalling
Just ignore the caterwaulling
There is nothing you can't facedown - if you lie
Never mind the jury's verdict - sell a lie
There are some who won't have heard it - so you lie
And your stock price needs inflating
More than simple truth needs stating
So ignore the court's decisions, tell a lie
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: calris74 on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
Hmm, actually I re-read this and realised just how stupid
the
verdict
is....
On the one hand, the jury found that Sun/Oracle behaved in a
manner in which Google would reasonably believe that
they did
not need an license (covering SSO)
And then they say they
couldn't come to a conclusion Re:
Fair Use
And what on earth is
the go with 4b - Sun behaved in a way
that could lead Google to assume they did
not need a
license, but Google did not rely on this as a basis for not
obtaining a license? Sounds like re-trial fodder to me:
OK, so we
know a jury will believe Sun's actions
provided 'tacit' approval for unlicensed
re-implementation,
now we just
need to prove that was the basis of our
decision to
not get a license
Imagine for a minute if someone
leaves the keys in a car
with a sign that says "Free to Drive (but please,
fill-er-up
when your finished)", advertises the location of the car in
the
local paper and gives you high-fives after you drive it
the first
time.
Now, imagine that the owner removes the sign (but leaves the
keys in the car) and you take it for a second drive (and the
owner watches
without trying to stop you). This time, the
owner gets you arrested and charged
with theft...
And the jury decides that:
- What you did fits the
legal definition of theft
- But the owners previous actions (and
leaving the
keys in the car) would give you a reasonable impression that
you
could still drive the car
- They couldn't decide if you're guilty of
theft or
not
Weird!
By my reckoning, how could Google
NOT have a valid
fair use defence
For another (Australian)
classic case of a 'Fair Use'
equivalent, take a look at
The Chaser APEC
pranks
It was decided that the police, failing to
notice
that the presented security badges were fake, had
given "tacit" permission for
the group to enter the
restricted zone
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 11:13 PM EDT |
So, it seems to me that almost everyone (both here and in the media in general)
is being a little bit sloppy in commenting on what the jury actually decided,
especially in regards to Q1, 3, and 4. Here is how I understand it:
Re: Q1
This question could have been worded more clearly.
A one word change and one word deletion would have done it. It should have
read:
"As to the compilable code for the 37 Java
API packages in question taken as a group:
"Has Oracle proven that Google has copied the overall structure,
sequence and organization of copyrighted works?"
This question
refers to copying the structure, sequence, and organization (that is,
non-literal copying) of the compilable code of the implementation
of the classes in the 37 packages. The SSO of computer programs (that would be
the compilable code) is protectable, that of an "API" is not (yet). The term
API is a red herring here and should have been left out for the sake of clarity.
That is was left in is probably grounds for appeal if there is no mistrial on
this count.
Once copying has been established, then fair use can be
considered. If there is no fair use (or other exception to copyright that
covers the copying and is pleaded), then and only then is there infringement.
Also, I'm not sure how the extent of the protected work is determined,
but it appears to me that even if the jury had rendered a verdict of copying and
no fair use on Q1, the decision would be appealable on the proper extent of the
work to be compared, especially in light of the issues with the registration.
Re: Q3
This question was also worded in a
confusing manner - is the jury deciding de minimis? It looks like they
are, but it isn't clear - I do believe that it's a matter of fact, though.
Since it looks to me like the jury decided that 9 lines out of 900 in the file
was not de minimis, I'm not sure if this verdict will stand. If Google
moved for a ruling as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could have found
the copying was anything other than de minimis it may well be overturned
by the judge. I haven't checked the motions to see if Google did so move. The
wording of this question may also be grounds for appeal (more likely by Google,
should it need to or be so inclined).
Re: Q4
This question is an advisory verdict only. The judge is free to
accept it or disregard it as it covers an equitable defence to infringement:
that of estoppel. As I understand it, in order for there to be a finding of
estoppel, two things must be proved: that Sun/Oracle's conduct led Google to
believe that they did not need a licence, and that Google relied on this
conduct in its decision not to take a licence. Both elements are essential, and
both will be decided by the judge alone.
I'm not sure how
the judge will rule on this, but he may also include in his verdict (which I
think will be a finding of non-infringement as a matter of law) that even if
there was infringement, Oracle would be estopped from asserting thier copyrights
(whatever they are) against Google (or anyone else that relied on their actions
implying that a licence wasn't necessary.
In other words, not
much of anything was really decided by the jury, other than there was no
violation of the copyright in the documentation. Most of the decisions on
copyright infringement still rest with the judge, and will likely be determined
after all phases of the trial have been completed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:07 AM EDT |
Can someone clarify if the worst case scenario is feasible at
all? If so what is the impact?
That is IF judge Alsup holds APIs copyrightable and on top of
that dismisses Google's fair use claim as matter of law since
jury left that open?
Of course Google can appeal etc. etc., but is this a scenario
totally impossible?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:43 AM EDT |
Who cares if it was a classic black Chanel jacket, or even the red? It wouldn't
be one of the plaid jackets. I mean, gold buttons on a taupe plaid?
It would help if we knew the colour of the clasp bag and the style of the
shoes.
I see what she means. It's hard to compete against free. Expensive, too!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT |
A name, including non-alphabetic characters, may be just a
name to a computer.
import java.net.MalformedURLException;
#include "/usr/include/linux/pps.h"
std::string tmp=some_hex_tmp_name_with_dots();
std::cerr << "path : " << tmp << std::endl;
path : /tmp/af.be.cd.dc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 03:20 AM EDT |
IIRC this issue was not resolved, though there was a
whole works thing in the jury instructions for the docs.
Seems like Q1 was misleading as it didn't mention
whole works.
Also did Oracle ever prove that they registered
copyright on the whole works, let alone subsets?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
IIRC this issue was not resolved, though there was a
whole works thing in the jury instructions for the docs.
Seems like Q1 was misleading as it didn't mention
whole works.
Also did Oracle ever prove that they registered
copyright on the whole works, let alone subsets?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT |
Sorry if someone else has brought this up already - I have not yet read through
all 387 comments posted as I type this.
I was trying to make sense of the
"No" verdict on question 3b
Has Oracle proven that Google's
conceded use of the following was infringing, the only issue being whether such
use was de minimus: Source code in seven "Impl.java" files and one "ACL"
file.
How can the jury have decided that conceded copying of 100%
of the files was not infringing? I can think of two ways to get to that
conclusion. Does anyone have any other ideas?
One, perhaps they noticed that
Oracle showed the output of a decompiler matched up against Google's version,
and decided that Oracle never showed that the source code itself was copied. As
a techie, I consider it well settled that the object code of a compiled program
is protected by the same copyrights that protect the original source code. It
seems obvious to me that if I decompile a program that is protected by copyright
I am producing an infringing derivative work. But Oracle seems not to have
thought to make that clear to the jury, and Google certainly didn't correct
their mistake, if that's what it was. The jury, based on just what they were
told, may have decided that Oracle never proved that Google's decompiling of the
object code was infringing use of the source code.
Second possibility, the
jury noticed that all of the Java Platform is freely available for anyone to
download and use, even if it is not available for anyone to produce and
distribute derivative works. Oracle did not prove that Google's conceded use of
the test files involved anything other than perhaps using them for their own
tests, maybe not even that, but in any case not copying and distributing
them.
Either of those ways of reaching the "No" verdict on 3b seems to me to
indicate the jury putting real thought and consideration into the details of the
case, and speaks well for them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 07:56 AM EDT |
Berger has Thursday to get here from Isreal!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I hope they fly him 1st class - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:06 AM EDT
- Or not - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- Berger who ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT
- Berger who ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:08 PM EDT
- Berger who ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
What about gcj that is part of gcc? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
I've followed everything so far, and I understand the alleged reason for Alsup's
peculiar instructions to the jury on the subject of copyrightability of APIs
(peculiar from my perspective, as a techie). What I don't understand though is
why the judge continues to delay his ruling on that issue, now that the jury has
returned a verdict to the best of their abilities.
In many ways, it is the judge who manufactured an impossible task for the jury,
by not declaring whether APIs are copyrightable as a matter of law in advance of
jury deliberations. And it is the two legal teams plus the judge who
manufactured this entire "SSO" fiction around which so much of the
discussion has revolved. It created a legal issue artificially where none
existed before, and it gave the jury a hypothetical to consider which
unavoidably harmed their ability to return a verdict based on matters of fact.
That may be history now, but in delaying his ruling on the matter of law
further, the judge seems to be turning an unfortunate legal strategy into
something worse, a major cause for concern worldwide. Does anyone understand
the basis for his delay?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
I have been following the copyright phase very closely, and
think I've got a good overall grip of the issues.
Possibly I'm missed it, but is there a good summary of the
state of play, expected arguments, and relative strengths of
case for the patent phase?
I'm not sure I have a good grip on who is likely to prevail
here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
In the jury instructions Judge Alsup gave clear direction that the jury were to
assume that the structure, sequence and organisation of API materials (SSO)
could be subject to copyright.
From everything that I have read on this and other cases (to say nothing of the
recent EU finding directly opposing Judge Alsup's view), the Judge is wrong on
this point.
Caveat: Oracle have argued that a developer wanting to write an API would first
start with the API definitions and from there fill out the relevant code
functionality. Other developers may argue that as code is written various
functions are naturally grouped together in associative ways until such time as
a "logical" API structure is derived. Let's say for the sake of
argument that in this instant case the truth lies somewhere in between.
I am not aware of either Oracle USA or Judge Alsup citing relevant case law to
support this point. Am I wrong on that? Moreover, I see plenty of examples where
the opposite is true...
The reason I ask for this clarification is because I cannot help but wonder if
the Court made a cardinal error when so instructing the jury. Had the Court
indicated that there was no legal precedent for defining that SSO could be
copyrighted, then I get the impression that Oracle would have lost every single
point in the copyright phase of the trial.
I was discussing this case with some non-technical friends over the weekend and
was asked to give a simplified explanation of the relevance of SSO and it's
relevance to the case. With no access to Groklaw, I improvised, and used the
basic controls of a car as an example.
My illustration explained that the "Car" code, had a whole series of
methods by which a user ("driver") could interact with it:
1. The steering wheel, to control direction
2. The pedals, to operate throttle, brake and clutch
3. Instrument switches, for functions such as lights, turn indicators, horn and
the like.
I explained that Oracle were saying that they had developed a "Java
Car" and in that they had specified how to interact with the vehicle by
selecting and positioning various controls into places which they deemed
logical. I gave them an example of a 3-position rocker switch which operated the
turn indicators, and a single sprung-loaded switch that operated the horn.
I said that Google had built a "Google Car" which also provided a horn
and turn indicators. I explained that in both vehicles, the turn indicators
could be set to turn left, turn right, or be inactive. I explained that Google
had decided to use a 3-position switch, as opposed to 3 different switches, and
so on.
The reaction I got from non-tekkies [with a non-IT example] was actually quite
predictable. Without exception, everyone thought that Oracle were significantly
over-reaching themselves with the claim of SSO. Maybe my example was not close
enough to the instant case; maybe I used language or sub-conscious references
that encouraged my audience to agree with my point of view. I have to concede
that I cannot be objective on this matter.
But it was fascinating to listen to the ensuing conversation. It moved rapidly
away from the Oracle/Google dispute and tried to apply the same "Oracle
thinking" to other things we take for granted...
Bottom line is that you can take away all the frightfully expensive lawyer time
and words: explain this in simple English and people will laugh because they
just can't bring themselves to believe that Oracle are arguing with the points
they've raised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jlueters on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
I am confused.
The java api documentation is generated with a tool, javadoc.
As far as i know machine generated code (if we assume that api documentation is
programme code) is not protected by law, at least here in Europe. Everything
has
to be written down by a human beeing.
Any idea why this topic has not been discussed during phase 1?
Jürgen
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
Suppose I'm driving in a 45 mph zone. I mistakenly believe
it's a 25 mph zone but decide to do 45 mph anyway, and I get
pulled over. When the cop asks whether I know what the speed
limit is, I answer honestly 25 mph. Should I really get an
infraction for having violated my conscience when in fact
there was no actual infraction?
If the consequence of 4A's yes answer is that no one needs a
license to use the API (what was the point of 4A after all),
why does 4B matter?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:03 PM EDT |
Was anyone from Groklaw's readership at the trial today (Tuesday)? If so,
can you give us your impressions? I'm curious how Google's opening
statement went.
If not, how long will we have to wait until transcripts are available?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:10 PM EDT |
Why doesn't google just take the 37 apis and pull them out of the OpenJDK
source? As far as I can see, the source for openjdk was released by Sun
under the GPL with classpath exception. Would that solve the copyright
infringement problem?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|