|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
Unfortunately we don't have reports or transcripts for the 9th, , but it's not
surprise that rangeCheck() wasn't found de minimis as a matter of law. The de
minimis analysis requires considerations of fact (qualitative and quantitative
amount), which are in dispute (the qualitative part certainly is), and
(apparently, maybe?) have been resolved by the jury in favour of Oracle.
I'm still fuzzy on one point - can someone please clarify for me if the question
of de minimis copying was before the jury or not?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- What?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 02:45 AM EDT
- What?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 05:18 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
| lawyers, for the lawyers don't you get? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 05:52 AM EDT |
a common, routine function supplied by EVERY language and used by EVERY properly
written program!
if you are a blind waitress filling a line of bowls, rangecheck tells you when
you are about to spill the soup![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 07:13 AM EDT |
| Some of those lines are blanks. Others are brackets, which
are required. One of
them is the declaration. There are 6
active lines, made up of 3 if statements.
There's nothing in
these 6 that qualify as creative. Here for some
mockmentary. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
Well, RangeCheck is a self contained piece of code, so it's not 9 lines out of
millions, it's 9 lines out of... 9.
The way I see it is this: If I published a book called "A million of my
poems", and put in a nine line poem written by James Gosling, albeit one he
published in a book called "A Kajillion poems I did write" which
contains 10 million poems, I would assume I'd still have committed a violation
of copyright law with no defences of any kind.
But IANAL.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
Failure by both legal teams. Google didn't copy the code from Oracle,
they copied it from the brain cells of Joshua Bloch. Google's version
is better than the one Bloch originally wrote for Sun, and he gave the
improved version back to Sun as open source. It should not have a
(c) Oracle on it. Why wasn't this clearly explained in evidence?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
| It may actually be "casual" but "causal" makes sense. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
