|
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
The judge asked for these briefs on copyrightability of the
Java APIs, and over time his questions have repeatedly
focused on the issue of whether free use of Java-the-
programming-language extends to some or all of the 37
accused APIs.
Oracle's legal strategy called for Ellison, who is clearly
not an experienced Java developer, to provide Springsource
as an example of being able to write Java programs without
using the core Java APIs.
It's therefore still relevant to explain to the court that
this testimony is false and unreliable. The relevance is to
the ruling shortly to be made as to whether the core Java
APIs, or at least the accused subset that Google has
implemented in Android, are really essential syntactically
for writing Java programs.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
> There should be some comeback against people lying under
> oath in court for direct financial benefit.
Maybe he didn't lie. Benefit of the doubt and all that.
Maybe it's just something he heard over drinks somewhere sometime,
it just passed by during the conversation, and besides he employs
people to take care of technical details like that.
Google's objection perhaps should have been "hearsay"
but who is to know where LE gets his trivia score points from?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
