|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 04:59 AM EDT |
Which is working in overdrive at the moment.
Also it doesn't seem to be correct or supportable, as Oracle
don't seem to have identified the works as these files
separately, nor registered them with the copyright office
(at all.)
It's also part of the Oracle strategy to continually shift
the case around, and having won infringement on these files
as individual works, you can bet your bottom dollar that the
case will revert to being about android vs java - in spite
of what the judge has said, as they hope it will all get
mired in confusion with a dozen appeals and everyone will
forget how and why the files were ruled infringed rather
than the entire works. The thing that they want to be
remembered is that android infringes on java.
It's the camel's nose in the tent. The thin end of the
wedge.
Also, it seems either the jury instructions were wrong, or
the judge is wrong, or the jury is unreasonable and unfit to
continue the case. At any rate continuing seems pointless
now as both sides have an almost ironclad appeal because of
this.
I don't think overruling the jury was necessarily a clever
move, but IANAJ/L. If I were on that jury, I would be
mightily annoyed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 07:29 AM EDT |
The problem with the argument about "the file in the entirely" is that
the division of source files or order of declarations in the source file for
most part has no functional implication.
The Java compiler will require public classes be contained in a file with the
same name, but besides this detail there is nothing that stops javac from
producing mutiple of class files from a single source file so setting the
boundary of the entire works in what is contained in single file is dubious at
best.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
As Google's recent postings show, a third party contractor, Noser, was
retained to provide the test files. Unknown to Google, Noser recompiled the
original Sun JAVA test program's and offered them to Google as their own
work.
Google had no access to the original *source* versions of the test files.
Without access to *Sun's* source copies of these files, how could Google
possibly have known that the work given to them by Noser was not original,
but copied???
Yes, I've read posts were people claim that Google *should* have known.
Think about this from the perspective of 'buyer beware'... I sell you a
painting, which I tell you has been a family heirloom for 200 years. Later,
you discover that it is actually property stolen in a museum robbery. You
lose the painting, and you have no recourse against the true owner for what
you paid for it, but you are not held liable for the theft... This is what
Oracle
are trying to say here. Oracle have not disputed that it was Noser and anot
Google that decompile the files. Google are a victim here, same as Oracle.
Yet Oracle are trying to hold Google guilty of something that they didn't do.
I am pretty sure the complaint accuses *Google* of copying the files. But
evidence presented at trial shows it was not Google that did the actual
copying, nor did they induce anyone else to do it. Oracle wants to find
Google liable of this just because they think Google has deep pockets.
This is just another shakedown.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
