|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
Found this on Unixmen
a>. 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|