|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
| Another basis for Google to appeal? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:53 AM EDT |
The eight test files were the issue. Were they in the JDK? What does the
testimony say? They weren't part of Harmony's implementation of the APIs.
Harmony said so. Where is the copyright work that Oracle claim ownership of and
how much of that do the eight files represent?
Are they to do with the Java SE system or something else using the Java
language? What tests are they capable of in the Android additions to the JDK?
Perhaps we don't need to know this. Perhaps it is quite OK to accept that
'Professor Mitchell testified that using the copied files even as test files
would have been significant use' without even knowing if they could be used at
all in Android... if anyone knew they were there... and knew what they tested...
and had made something that they could test with the eight files.
So, it's not about the 37.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
