|
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
That's like saying the wall clock is the most important part
of your workplace, because it gets looked at a lot.
The real importance of RangeCheck() should be evaluated by
how many times it throws an error, because that's the only
time it actually performs its function.
----------------------
Mrs. Tweedy! The chickens are revolting!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
That's exactly my point.
Oracle is arguing that it is so important in the *defendant's* work, where the
law seems to read that it would be rangeCheck's value to Java that determines if
it is de minimis.
The supreme court (Harper & Row, cited by Oracle) said "[t]he portions
actually quoted were selected . . . as among the most powerful passages in those
chapters." 471 U.S. at 565-66. "those chapters" meaning the
chapters from the original Ford biography, not the article that quoted them.
Also cited by Oracle, Merch. Transaction Sys., Inc. v. Nelcela, Inc., 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 25663, at *61 (D. Ariz. Mar. 17, 2009) "Thus, Nelcela will not
escape liability unless it can show that the protectable elements in the Lexcel
software constitute an insignificant portion or aspect *of the Lexcel
software*" again talks about the copying of important pieces of the
*source* not how important they are to the accused work.
I would say that rangeCheck is not a significant portion or aspect of Java,
regardless of how many times Android runs the equivalent code.
--Joe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
How can Oracle and Co. keep a straight face on this argument? Google removed the
code long ago, as soon as they were notified of it. That's how vital it was. It
took them less than a day to remove it.
If it's so vital Android can't work well without it, then why did they remove it
right away? There is no way this could be worth over a $100,000. I've written
$100,000 software and ****this is NOT $100,000 software****.
Even at a consulting rate of $1000/hr, this function takes all of 2 minutes to
write and 30 seconds to test, for a maximum value of $1000, if you bill at a
minimum an hour. But I wouldn't give you two bits for it. That's a quarter for
you young whipper-snappers. Or at least that's what my Gramps told me.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|