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
But why argue ove this? | 194 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Deminimis backward
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 | # ]

Deminimis backward
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 | # ]

But why argue ove this?
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 | # ]

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 )