|
| Authored by: jvillain on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
| As it is just math I really don't know how it is copyrightable. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
Anyone following the spec would implement it the same
way.
Google admitted it was copied by mistake anyway,
either as it's true, or as a lure to get oracle to waste
undue attention on something pointless and worthless.
Maybe both reasons.
Judge already pointed out that oracle's profits claim
based on this is ridiculous. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
I commented about that in the previous story. If you apply all the rules that
Judge Alsup has already applied in this case like not protecting names or short
phrases, not protecting bits of the language or math functions to compare
numbers, and not protecting purely functional ideas then there is no protectable
creative expression left in the nine lines.
Someone pointed out that there is no prior art defence in copyright law. What I
would point out is that any expression that has been written by millions of
coders over decades is not newly created by the author of rangeCheck.
Also, we have been told where rangeCheck appears in the Java APIs. Have we seen
that the code is a copy? I haven't seen Mitchell's proof. Perhaps Josh Bloch
told Google that it was something he wrote for Sun and they just assumed it was
in Java and ceded the point. They would have been assuming that Oracle were
behaving ethically at the time and did not see the value of challenging them.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
Anyone who writes this function writes something almost identical to what Google
supposedly "infringed" ... and code like this is written thousands of
times each day by programmers all over the world without a thought.
Copyrighting junk like this is the same as if someone named Bob copyrighted the
phrase "Hello, I am Bob" and then sued every other Bob that introduced
themselves that way.
The copyright and patent system has run so far off the track that is just makes
me sick.
Oracle knows it is in the wrong. Oracle knows it brought the case with no real
evidence, or thinking that they had evidence that now they realize was an
illusion. It is immoral and unconscionable that they even continue. We need
strong laws that destroy companies that abuse copyrights and patents this way
and that severely punish the CAFC and the USPTO for making such travesties
possible.
All members of the CAFC need to be stripped of their judicial power forever, and
they must forfeit all of their assets. Clearly, they are corrupt and are
working solely in the interests of the big money players that bribe them.
The USPTO needs to be completely restructured, with a severe limit on the number
of patents it can issue. Maybe a quota. More than five patents issue in a year
and they all get fired.
Any company that abuses patents and copyrights this way needs to be dismantled.
The shareholders need to lose everything, and all of the officers need jail
terms for filing false court documents and committing fraud on the patent
office.
An independent review system needs to be set up that can stop these sorts of
lawsuits in their tracks before they hurt anyone. Guarantees need to be in
place so innocent parties can afford to defend themselves instead of being
forced to pay protection money to thugs like Oracle or Microsoft.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
