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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Doctrine - switching from LGPL to MIT | 360 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Dear Judge Alsup:
Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT

Dear Judge Alsup:

Our client, having expressed to current counsel grave concern about inadvertent infringement of possible heretofore unknown copyrights held by various and sundry Courts, current counsel has conducted extensive and exhaustive research to compile and compare the protocols, procedures and technical requirements for submissions by applicants to state and Federal courts.

We are, therefore, submitting our briefs, 9 pairs of Hanes [tm] boxers plus 1 pair of Victoria Secret (the legal assistant responsible for that 'page' has assured us that he has no other brand or model in his stock and we therefore beg the Court's tolerance in this minor inconsistency), handwritten in Spanish using Crayola [tm] crayons (all of the 64 color box, as our client insists that we spare no expense in making certain we do not copy any court's possible intellectual property without prior permission), with our findings of overlap in Applicant Procedure Interfaces amongst the various courts in the land.

It appears to current counsel that all courts freely borrow APIs from each other without so much as attribution. No evidence of royalties or infringement actions among these courts was found.

For the above reasons, we respectfully ask this Court to rule that APIs are not elements of expression protectable by copyright.

Respectfully submitted,
Ben Sarcastic,
Levity, Sarcastic and Cheeky, LLP
Counsel for the Developers

[The above is submitted with absolutely no disrespect intended -- I suspect Judge Alsup has a sense of humor, as long as the humorist does not inconvenience or distract the jury nor impede the court's progress. The intent is merely to illustrate that we all need to interoperate at interfaces or chaos results. There's a term for the method of communication employed above. Something about absurdium, I think. Or maybe that's a newly patented material discovered holding up the foundation of the USPTO. I'm easily confused].

Here's hoping the good Judge can cut through the smoke and mirrors.

---
-- grouch

GNU/Linux obeys you.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Washington Post
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:42 PM EDT
"The jury has turned in a partial verdict in Oracle v. Google, but was it
really qualified to do so?"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/the-jury-has-turned-in-a-parti
al-verdict-in-oracle-v-google-but-was-it-really-qualified-to-do-so/2012/05/08/gI
QAmhlCBU_story.html

Some of the press have nailed the problem.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Florian is not brave enough for comments.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:14 PM EDT
It really annoys me. He is so often wrong, and he pretends he knows
what he's talking about, what with his years of experience and all - none of
which are apparently in law. I'm fortunate enough to know a few things
about patents and the law (though I am also not a lawyer), and it is so
obvious sometimes that he is just simply wrong that it hurts me to read him
and have no way to respond.

I'm glad groklaw exists so I can just say that. I would say the same to him if

he would let me.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle will pay the ultimate price for this: people
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 10:20 PM EDT
Ellison crossed over from being merely greedy into forbidden territory when he
told his lawyers to redefine a core tenet of the computing industry. To say
that APIs being copyrightable would be a disaster is an understatement of
biblical proportions, because computers touch *everything* these days. Nothing
would escape the resulting Armageddon of the end of interoperability.

That won't stand of course, even if Alsup declares them to be copyrightable, but
for Oracle I think the damage is already done anyway. I predict that Oracle's
most important assets, his top software people, are going to begin questioning
whether they want to work for an organization that is manifestly inimical to the
foundations of their profession.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle vs. Google hits the patent phase
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:24 PM EDT

Excellent article on The Verge: "Oracle vs. Google hits the patent phase: inside the opening statements", by Bryan Bishop. Rich in detail about the patents in question.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Java for Fun and Profit
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:33 AM EDT
f-secure.com

It's not clear from the story if Java is being used for bad purposes,
but it looks at least like somebody's trademark is being violated.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

YALCWS [Yet Another Linux Census Web Site]
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT

Found this on Unixmen. A Web Site to list and connect Linux users.

Note to GreyGeek:

Iowa/Nebraska is tied with Austin, TX, and needs only one more user to tie Boston. NYC is not even in the running.

---
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 | # ]

Doctrine - switching from LGPL to MIT
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 09:50 AM EDT
The Doctrine project, http://doctrine-project.org/ has kicked off a campaign to

change the license from LGPL to MIT. All current and past contributors are
being
contacted by email to agree to the license change.

I personally don't believe a license change is necessary given that Doctrine is
PHP
code. In any case, I recognize that there is FUD that might stifle
adoption/use.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

what happened to Dart?
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
What about Google's <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_(programming_language)">Dar
t</a> language, or was that an implicit threat to dump Java if Oracle
litigated? I was excited when I read about it particularly since it claims to
target making a break from Java's deficiencies. On reading the criticism
section, I'm certainly not deterred, as long as the language is truly open and
kept open.

Picking apart the Criticisms, if Apple and Microsoft think it's a bad idea, then
it's definitely worth a good exploration. The 'consensus' driven part is a
double-edge sword. I think that Mr. Hunt was really using a more palatable term
for 'inertial driven.' If the performance is there, then consensus will build
(in the absence of anticompetitive behavior). Dart would either perform well
enough to justify further work or fade away. Brendan Eich's comments are
horse-hooie, as long as the language is open.

Regards,
mc

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google's motion for Mistrial
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT
Has it been filed yet, and is there a PDF?

TNX

[ 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 )