|
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
| If any are needed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
That looks like a bit of a facepalm of a law to me, but
whatever.
I must be misunderstanding though - I don't see how the $150k
is a baseline though - since that's the maximum statutory
damages, presumably they could conceivably be offered
statutory of minimum ($600 ish) or a jury amount of $1000.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
The indications for posting in HTML and making clickable links are in red text
below the comment editing box.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nola on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
As has been noted before, sending this to the jury rather than
having the Judge decide means that there's one fewer thing to appeal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
| Please place the news pick title in the comment title for ease of reference. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
| Please keep up the good work. Thanks to all the volunteers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
| http://twitter.com/#!
/Feldegast
raw:
http://twitter.co
m/#!/Feldegast/oracal-vs-google-
trial
With many thanks to Feldegast and
the reporters[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
Let me point out two Oracle arguments:
1. Oracle argues that a casual connection between infringement and profits,
entitles Oracle to all profits.
2. Oracle has argued that blank lines count in the infringing 9 lines of code.
So a casual connection from an infringing blank line to your profits entitles me
to ALL of your profits. Now pay me $6 BILLION DOLLARS please.
Gee, that reminds me of a SCO theory. JFS developed in OS/2 and AIX. IBM uses
JFS from OS2 to develop JFS for Linux (not the JFS from AIX). But AIX is
descended from UNIX. And SCO is descended from UNIX. Put all that together
somehow and establish a connection, including some backwards-in-time connections
from SCO to Linux. Now pay me $5 BILLION.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
Sounds like good old American jurisprudence.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
This whole unhappy saga is being drawn out unnecessarily, and with each passing
day, the jury's verdict on the copyright phase is being demoted since it was
conditional on the judge's ruling.
Alsup's legal games are doing legal mischief to the jury.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
Since rangeCheck is only a error check, Google's best defense would be to take
whatever version of Android infringed, compile it and flash it on a phone, then
compile another version without rangeCheck and flash that on a phone, and show
the two phones running identically to the jury. If rangeCheck does not change
the behavior of Android, then it probably has little to do with it's success or
profits.
Regards,
-Jeremy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
There is no way RangeCheck is entitled to copyright protection. Put thirty
programmers in a room, tell them what the routine needs to do, and twenty of
them will write RangeCheck just as it is. There is no content in that routine
that can be copyrighted.
Suing over "RangeCheck" is like someone named Bob suing every other
Bob that has ever said "Hi, my name is Bob."
This trial is a joke. The judge is a buffoon. Oracle is a sleazy back alley
thug. Copyright law in the US is corrupt nonsense.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
Ok - I have a question. A programming language can be
copyrighted. But, to write a program in that programming
language, I am copying parts of that language, so - does
programming in a language violate the copyright of that
language (assuming the language is copyrighted?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
Copying nine lines of code that you yourself wrote in a previous engagement is
worth six figures in statutory damages? There goes web development as a cottage
industry.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SLi on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
I thought the statutory range was something like $750-$150,000
(don't remember the exact amounts, but I think it could be tripled for
willfullness). So how is the $150,000 number the baseline?
Wouldn't a jury need to decide the amount of statutory damages too,
unless the
injured party decides they are happy with the lowest possible
award?
So, if
the jury awards low infringer's profits and Oracle subsequently
elects
statutory damages, would the jury still need to decide them? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
I think we established the seven decompiled source files didn't ship to
customers' phones. Did the seven decompiled source files ship to Android phone
makers? Or were they used only by developers of the Android system at Google?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
Oracle argues rangeCheck is in Android
Was
in Android. Oracle may have found that it wasn't completely scrubbed
from the version control system, but it's not in any currently shipping phones
as far as I know.
This should figure into the calculations
somehow, if you assume that the amount per phone is greater than zero (which
seems a bit of a stretch, considering how trivial and easy-to-replace the code
was).
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them
soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
