|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
Please mention the mistake in the title of your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- FreeBSD 10 will be using Clang instead of GCC - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- Who said unpaid... N/T - Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- FreeBSD 10 will be using Clang instead of GCC - Authored by: rcsteiner on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT
- What do you mean "unpaid"? - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- FreeBSD 10 will be using Clang instead of GCC - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT
- Sounds par for the Course - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- Not enough BSD in MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- so in future crashes will be now known as clangers? - Authored by: stevec on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- FreeBSD 10 will be using Clang instead of GCC - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- FreeBSD 10 will be using Clang instead of GCC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:44 AM EDT
- Good choice, gcc is falling apart technically - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT
- Nokia tests new all time low... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:41 PM EDT
- Psystar Over and Out.. - Authored by: Zarkov on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
- Storage Wars and the Credit Practices Rule - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:05 AM EDT
- I thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- Nokia Reverses Course, Quietly Begins Selling N9 in United States - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
Please mention the news story's name in the title of the top
post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
Please post all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ.
Please post the HTML as plain text for easy copying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
I did this walk once...
True story...
Walking from Caltrain to the courthouse for jury duty.
Crossing Market street, someone asked if I wanted to buy some pot.
Got into the box for voir dire on a drug case.
Judge asked if anyone had experience with drugs.
I couldn't resist, I said, "yes, someone offered to sell me pot on the way
to the
courthouse."
Got a bit of a chuckle.
I was dismissed by the defense, probably for other reasons.
/CSB[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
There are always multiple processes
running that are the dalvik executable.
Each one is running one of the core apps.
These are kicked off by the zygote
process.
So, if your Android device is booted, the
Dalvik VM is running.
Independently of any code that does not
infringe the '104 patent.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
With many thanks to Feldegast and reporters
Feldegast
tweets
Raw tweets[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Continued from previous thread - Van Nest; Oracle trying to change patent claims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:48 PM EDT
- Van Nest: Static / Dynamic - "There's a killer" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT
- van Nest : "Overwhelming evidence of non infringement" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- Unscientific observation: Van Nest getting more jury smiles than Jacobs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- Googl trying again to show problems with Mitchell's testimony (I think?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- Jacobs objects to spec reading - Overruled - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- Van Nest pulls out Schwartz blog post again - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT
- Hurrah! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- Van Nest finishes. Recess then 6 minute Oracle rebuttal - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Jacobs rebuts: "Google not telling the whole story" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- Jacobs: "Definition of recklessness: relying on a blog post" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Jacobs: Google organised world's info - must have been aware of patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:42 PM EDT
- Jacobs: "Oracle is talking about meaningful data" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Rebuttal over. Now 10 mins of jury instructions before deliberation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- Van Nest: Alsup misspoke during jury instruction - Oracle have burden on willfulness - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- Oracle wants Page here tomorrow in case of phase 3 - Alsup: "what's your point" - Google says no - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Alsup: Page must attend if subpoenad - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- But he doesn't see the point if it's just over 9 line rangeCheck - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Reconvening at 1:30pm for hearing motions - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Alsup annoyed by Oracle's damages phase demands - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- Safra catz hasn't been around recently: Catz leaving a sinking ship? :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- Back to hear motions - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Google's Purcell : Oracle can't tie damages to 9 lines - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- Boies: We don't have burden of proof - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- Boies: Denying infrniger's profits case means Google gets a free pass - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- Boies recognises possibility of ZERO billion $ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- Alsup recognises that "anyone" could write rangeCheck - didn't speed up Android release - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Alsup: How could you even make that argument? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT
- Alsup's been learning to code for a few weeks and has written rangeCheck 100 times. (haha) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- Boies fighting tooth and nail for infringer's profits - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Alsup: Oracle haven't won anything so they are trying a fishing expedition for phase 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Alsup: I have a lot to read before I can tell you the SSO copyrightability law - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- Confirmed - Alsup learned to code for this case - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- Possibly all done here today - reconvene at 8AM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT
- Press corps: trial is a mess - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- Oracle considering tossing infringer's profits for a deal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- Clarification: Alsup learned JAVA for this case. Did have some programming experience - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Wednesday morning: Lead attys arguing or bargaining - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT
- van Nest chatting with the clerks - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- Baber & Boies arguing over damages proceedings - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT
- Van Nest: What can I help you with? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT
- Joint OraGoogle huddle: Van Nest + Anderson, Boies + Norton - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:06 AM EDT
- Boies has a problem with the deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT
- Huddles and whispering ongoing Baber's refereeing, Jacobs is being quiet - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:13 AM EDT
- Please move to the new story (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT
- Tweets from the courtroom - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 05:59 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
One down, several more to go.
When does SCO end? It's currently cleard for trial, but not scheduled. SCO
seems to be completely undead, not in Chapter 7 but not (as far as I've seen)
filing monthly reports any more with the bankruptcy court in Delaware. How long
can they survive in that state before the BK court pulls the plug?
But we're a lot closer to the end there than we are in Oracle v. Google (not but
what it may take SCO much longer in terms of calendar time). This one's going
to the Supreme Court, and the SC may actually take this one.
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
Doesn't the party that registered copyrights as Oracle purportedly did
here get reimbursed for their attorneys fees if they win?
I wonder if the same holds true for patents?
Might explain why Oracle's lawyers apply no brakes. If they win, their
client racked up all those attorney fees on Google's dime.
Wasn't there some similar dynamic at work in the SCO case, unlimited
attorneys work for a guaranteed flat payment? Seems to be a similar
focus in each case to ratchet up the amount of work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
Apparently, it's not possible for Judge Alsup to send out a marshal to pick up
the juror?
I saw one time a lady left her purse with keys, wallet and bus pass inside a
post office at closing time, and it was locked behind her. A marshal eventually
prevailed upon the local postmaster to let the lady retrieve her purse. (A pity
that's what it took.)
So, it's not as if a marshal doesn't sometimes act like a local officer to help
people.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT |
In his closing arguments Mr Jacobs was a prime example of
what I hate in Lawyers. He took peoples words out of context,
and in some places lied. He twisted and danced around the
truth. This gives some lawyers a bad name, because if
protecting your client forces you to lie then you have lost
from the beginning.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
Extrapolate. I'll tell you a secret. Lawyers talking to the media
are talking on behalf of their client. Some of them sometimes say things they
know are more braggadocio than reality.
Although it rarely
happens, sometimes speaking more "braggadocio than reality" can personally
expose the attorney(s) doing so (as well as their client) to an actionable
countersuit.
My own case (PRATT v. NELSON 200, No. 20051167, May 18,
2007), argued before the Utah Supreme Court, is proof.
The original
suit against us (for which our countersuit, in the above reference, is about)
was filed in 2003. At the deposition of the plaintiff in the original suit, the
first question my own attorney asked the plaintiff was "do you know Nevin
Pratt". The plaintiff's answer was "no". The second question my own attorney
asked the plaintiff was "do you know Denise Pratt", and again the plaintiff's
answer was "no" (there were more defendant attorneys present than just my own,
because the original suit was against multiple people).
In the original
case (for which we countersued in the reference above), my wife and I were sued
by somebody we did not even know, concerning an event that we were completely
unaware of, where the alleged event took place at a time when I was provably two
thousand miles away from the location of the alleged event, and my wife was
provably hundreds of miles away from the location of the alleged
event.
Quite frankly, we had no idea how we ended up as defendents in
their suit. My best guess is that it was a case of mistaken identity, but I
really have no idea. And, their suit was publicized by their attorney(s)
extensively. And it accused us personally of all sorts of what we consider to
be unsavory actions and behaviors.
We considered it to be a clear case
of defamation. And so we countersued on those grounds.
Normally,
attorneys and plaintiffs are protected by judicial immunity in the claims they
make in their court filings, and in their reporting of such claims to the media.
But we argued that immunity could be lost through excessive publication. The
court initially sided with them. We appealed. The Appellant Court sided with
them. We filed with the Utah Supreme Court. The Utah Supreme Court agreed to
hear our case, and when argued before them, they sided with us. They said, in
part:
We hold that appellate review of the Pratts' judicial
privilege argument is not precluded by the invited error doctrine. We
also hold that the Nelsons' statements lost through excessive publication any
immunity they may have otherwise enjoyed under the judicial proceeding
privilege. Finally, we hold that the group defamation rule does not
preclude the Pratts' defamation claim. Therefore, we remand to the district
court for further consideration of the Pratts' defamation
claim.
That was a major Supreme Court victory for us. And, I
believe this ruling was the catalyst that enabled productive settlement
talks.
So, the first thing that folks should learn from this is that
grandiose claims are sometimes actionable.
And, another lesson from all
of this is that lawsuits rarely stand alone. They almost always invoke a
countersuit. Thus, you will almost never be in "just one" lawsuit. You will
almost always be in at least two, if you are in it at all. So think about that
before you decide to sue someone, and make sure you are prepared to fight that
war on more than one front. Because you almost certainly will need
to.
And, another thing that I can confirm is that, just as PJ says,
settlements rarely can be discussed in public. And because of that, I probably
will not respond any more to this thread, with any additional details, other
than what I have said above.
The very best thing is to do all you can
to stay out of court, if it is at all possible. It's not cheap. And, in my
opinion, it's almost never productive for anybody but the attorneys, no matter
which side you are otherwise on.
But if you have to go to court, don't
bluff. Make it real.
Nevin Pratt
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT |
PJ: "Some of them sometimes say things [in public] they know are more
braggadocio than reality."
I would respectfully disagree with that assessment. It's clearly attempting to
poison the potential jury pool, or make a fair trial otherwise impossible.
And that's why I was glad to see SCO Germany get punished for trying it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
I just heard from a reliable source that Oracle is trying to demand of Boeing,
one percent of the value of any program using Java be paid annually to Oracle
for that use of the 'free to use' Java language.
That would be -your- tax dollars for the Boeing defence programs (among others)
that Oracle is trying to syphon off.
This is some strange reinterpretation of Sun's promise of 'free' Oracle is
placing on the Java language as a whole.
If it wasn't free to reimplement, and now in "secret" negotiations it
isn't "free" to use, it was what? Free to admire from afar?
My understanding is that Boeing's response was something on the order of
"one percent per year is nowhere near reasonable a price, go ahead and sue,
you'll lose."
Java is Dead.... Bury it before it starts to stink.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Boeing or Oracle, but I am frequently near people
who do. As gossip goes this is as reliable as gossip can get. IMHO of course.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
Alsup says he's been writing code since this trial started. He's
written rangeCheck code a "100 times". Incredulous Oracle claiming
damages....
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that there
are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lots of respect - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- Every time he got bored listening to an expert witness he wrote another version of rangeCheck - Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- Does this disqualify him - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT
- What languages does he code in? - Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT
- What languages does he code in? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- Hmmm.... - Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT
- Hmmm.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:41 AM EDT
- Hmmm.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:02 AM EDT
- What languages does he code in? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT
- math major => FORTRAN - Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:34 PM EDT
- What languages does he code in? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT
- If he went to Dartmouth College: BASIC - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:16 PM EDT
- I guess Java is out of the question! ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:14 AM EDT
- What languages does he code in? - Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT
- Haskell - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 05:30 AM EDT
- Now I'm -very- impressed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- Prediction - APPEAL! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 09:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
Not sure if Rachel King is really reporting what the press corps thinks or just
trying to cover for her earlier reporting. The trial isn't a mess, Oracle's case
is a mess. The trial is pretty clear. Van Nest's closing arguments were to the
point and provided a clear summary of why Oracle's claims are invalid. In
contrast, Jacobs' earlier closing summary and his rebuttal of Google's summary
were convoluted, contorted, and apologetic for Oracle's mistakes during the
trial.
Unless the jury is full of people who used the "dog ate my homework"
excuse for handing in an undecipherable wad of paper - and feel overwhelming
sympathy for Oracle as a result - I think that, in the judge's words, "no
reasonable jury" can find for any of the plaintiff's claims based on the
offered evidence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
I have to think that most lawyers, essentially being told by a senior judge that
they're behaving like a buffoon, would back off and consider their (and their
client's) position.
Boies though - it just seems to wash past him like the judge has simply wished
him a pleasant day!
Does he really think he's that good? Is he really that good? Not with SCO as a
reference.
Baffling, truly baffling.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
From Rachel King's ZDNet article:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/judge-continues-
to-criticize-oracle-for-going-after-infringers-profits/77106
Boi
es proposed to the court that if Alsup rules that the 37 Java APIs from phase
one are actually not copyrightable, Oracle will accept a roadmap leading to
statutory damages. The significance here is the payout potential is far smaller
for Oracle as the maximum is $150,000.
This doesn't really seem
to make sense to me?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
I think that's fantastic!
It gives him direct experience of exactly how hard those 3
if statements are. IMO, there are very few people who know
about writing software who would think that there is
_anything_ special about RangeCheck. It's brilliant that he
realised that he needed to understand the technology
properly to be able to make a judgement; it gives me some
hope for the US justice system, which from all the stuff
I've seen on Groklaw seems quite often not fit for purpose.
Secondly, with respect to structure, it makes it clear to
him exactly how Java works from a structure point of view; I
don't think that the sso argument holds much water once you
realise that there are certain things that were fixed in
Java.
The only part of the API that I think is vulnerable to
Oracles sso argument is the names of parameters, which in
Java, do not need to be the same. Other languages have other
rules of interoperation, and in some languages the names of
the parameters do count as part signature, but not Java,
which gives them an element of copyrightablity through not
being a matter of choice in a new implementation of the API.
For certain parameters there are some names where there's
not a lot of sensible choice - for instance, there's not any
real choice about a parameter called 'color' - what else can
you call it? But there's a little choice with things like
'toIndex' and 'fromIndex' which could be 'endIndex' and
'startIndex'. But these are also functional, and aren't
there to add color to the API, so I can't imagine that they
are protectable.
Imo, speaking as a developer, Oracle didn't prove
infringement of the patents. They had go to ridiculous
linguistic ends to paint the patents as covering what
Android does.
Regarding $150,000. I know we are looking at that as a
baseline. But actually, I'd like to see him award Oracle
$60. Being about the cost to write those 3 if statement and
test them. I think a $150K win could be spun by Oracle as
some sort of moral victory, but a $60 win would be some
fantastic mockery of $6B, and I can't see how Oracle could
paint it in a good light. I know that won't happen, but it's
what is deserved for wasting the court's time, Google's
time, the jury's time, and our time.
But most importantly about him learning Java - with every
new developer in the world, the world becomes a better
place; another person who can manipulate the technology
that surrounds us, and another one who will realise in due
course that software is culture and should be open. Double
woot!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
"And I expect that the amount of taxes and costs in this case, there will
be a lot of them."
Is that like Google getting to stick Oracle for Google's costs, if Oracle
doesn't have a shred of a case? And is Alsup therefore tipping his hand that he
doesn't think Oracle has had a shred of a case?
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
I've been wondering about those test files SO I'll ask a couple of questions and
see if someone can help me out.
What do that Test?
Are they part of OpenJDK?
If they were released under GPL v2, was decompliling the improper?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
PJ wrote:
And did any of us guess that this judge can code? That is
the biggest surprise of the entire trial, to me. No wonder he was able to
comprehend the technical testimony. But it does make me wonder, why then is he
having such a hard time figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted?
That's the biggest surprise of the trial for me too. How
awesome is that!
But I'd just like to point out that we don't know whether
Judge Alsup is actually having a hard time figuring out whether APIs can be
copyrighted. Its possible he already has this figured out, and just needs to
make sure all the legal i's are dotted and t's are crossed before he makes his
ruling. Even if (suppose) he were 95% sure he knows how it should go, maybe he
just hasn't had time to do the due dilligence and check all of his references
etc. for it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- APIs and copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT
- The bamboozle test - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:53 PM EDT
- Hi did, say... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:25 AM EDT
- What you know != What you can prove - Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- he said he has a lot of reading to do - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT
- APIs and copyright, weird - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- What else will he be taking into consideration when he considers the question? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:35 AM EDT
- Not surprising for me - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 04:45 AM EDT
- APIs and copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 07:39 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:56 PM EDT |
Because his job is not making a verdict corresponding to sanity, but
corresponding to the law. And the law has not been written by programmers. You
need to map its meaning to the case. And it is not the question what makes
sense to the judge: he is not the one making the laws.
If the law leads to bad results when applied to the case, the judge is not in a
position to fix that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
I'm surprised that a programmer could get a copyright on something as trivial as
rangeCheck which requires three comparisons to be carried out. Assuming they are
independent, these comparisons can only be ordered 6 different ways.
So the 7th person could not write rangeCheck without infringing on one of the 6
earlier implementations. What nonsense!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
Oracle: Mitchell made an honest mistake
Google: Mitchell changed his mind
Who will the jury believe? Burden of proof is on Oracle.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kds on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
Let me see if I got this right: If symbolic references were used, there would
be a table somewhere that would pair up the symbol ("y",
"fun", "White House") to some other data (possibly an
address location). In the case of a numeric reference (IE Google's version of
what was done), this table doesn't exist in the form of symbol1, data1, symbol2,
data2, etc. but as a table of data1, data2, etc.
If the numeric references (referred to as CCCC in the trial) were used as
symbolic references as Oracle states, wouldn't the table be in the form of
CCCC1, data1, CCCC2, data2, etc.? The mere absence of the symbolic references
in the table proves that the numeric references are NOT symbolic references but
as numeric offsets into a table.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
But it does make me wonder, why then is he having such a hard time
figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted?
From what I read, I
gain the impression that this judge is sharp as a needle and very conscientious.
And he takes pride in what he does. Very much unlike a bankruptcy judge in
Delaware. But that is, of course, a completely different story.
I am quite
sure that he is aware of the repercussions a decision on copyright in APIs is
going to have in the industry. If he is, we can be quite sure what his gut
feelings are. But I guess that he knows very well that the number of coding
judges in the court of appeals is limited. In order not to be overturned, the
order he is going to write must be both legally and technically fool-proof. And
it must be accessible to non-programmers, because BSF are virtuosos in pulling
the wool over the eyes of those who are not in the know.
It is his task to
translate the evidence in the record into a language that is at once legally
flawless and transparent to non-experts. I don't envy him and I hope the best. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
Or is it another trick...
Oracle: Yes, it is. And one of the things
I suggested is that these two tiny
issues should not be the single subject of
phase 3. For example, if you decide
against us on copyrightability, this will
resolve the issue--
This makes it clear what the easy (and
correct) solution is. He's almost asking
the judge to rule against
him.
Judge: It won't resolve rangeCheck. That's still there, and I
don't want to be
stampeded into making a decision. I have a lot to read before
I can tell you
what the answer is on the big issue. So in the meantime, we have
to get
through the rest of phase 3. We're in this position where I think you
are
making a huge stretch.
[Boies tries to say something, but the judge cuts
him off]
He's repeatedly hearing that the judge doesn't buy into
the beelions.
Oracle: Can I make one suggestion? I haven't talked
to my client, sometimes
my clients shoot me for these things, but let me make a
proposal: put off
sending this to the jury, and if it's determined that there's
no copyrightability
for the APIs, we'll take statutory damages for these two
things and not make
an infringer's profits claim. If it turns out we eventually
go to the jury on the
API damages, we'll seek infringer's profits at that
time.
Translation: We think we should get beelions, but we want a
fallback to
thousands. I'm not quite sure I see why the judge should go for
this. He's
already stated that Oracle have to choose. He's already made it
clear that the
trial schedule is important.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
"No wonder he was able to comprehend the technical testimony. But it does
make me wonder, why then is he having such a hard time figuring out whether APIs
can be copyrighted?"
I don't think he's having as much of a hard time with the figuring as he is
taking his time to research all the relevant case law and make sure his
decision, when issued, is as well stated and supported as possible.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
Judge: You can't win with RangeCheck.
Oracle: No, it's really really important.
Judge: Witness testified a high-school student could code it.
Oracle: No, No, Google made squillions by copying it.
Judge: It really is very simple. Don't go there - please?!
Oracle: We will show RangeCheck was the sole basis of Android's success and
still intend to claim squillions.
Judge: I'm a programmer. I could, and have, written RangeCheck in half a dozen
languages, in as many ways, before I've even had my first coffee of the
morning.
Oracle: Ulp!!!
You have to think he's spent most of the trial waiting to drop that in.
Love the guy - absolute star.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
Has anyone actually read the patent that Robert Van Nest summarises in his
closing remarks? Are his remarks accurate as a description of the patent
claims?
If so, why on earth was it ever given? The book "Concurrency and
Programming Languages" by David M. Harland published in 1986 by Halstead
Press describes this technique as a general use method for programming
languages.
It truly bemuses me that all patent systems have been so stretched out of shape
that there are more than a dozen patents given in any year. There are just not
that many new ideas that come up - mostly a rehash or reapplication of existing
ideas to new situations.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:19 PM EDT |
Apparently he has trouble coming up
with a solid case in three times that timeframe.
Is he in the wrong profession?
Judge Alsup could probably teach him some of
the finer points.
Oh, wait, maybe he already has.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
PJ asks about this unusual judge who can write code:
why then is he
having such a hard time figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted?
Could this be a 9th Circuit (California) thing? This is where
Hollywood and Silicon Valley are located. IIRC they are the only circuit which
doesn't accept the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test of copyright
infringement. Perhaps judges over there have a tendency not to curtail copyright
law without a strong reason. It may be dictated by the attitudes of who sit on
the 9th circuit appeal court.
I am just speculating here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
I think we know Jacobs from the SCO case, or at least the law
firm. Just out
of curiosity, I assume some of the same lawyers
(like Jacobs) were involved in
that too, on behalf of Novell?
Is the firm representing Google, and van
Nest, familiar from
some context? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
Judge: You're required to make an election. Are you now saying you
elect to try for 504 damages and profits and not statutory
damages?
Oracle: Yes, Your Honor.
The Judge should know
by now to get that in writing :)
And: if Judge Alsup is in fact
dabbling with learning Java, someone should point him at Project Euler (I bet
he'd love it) so he hurries up with the SSO ruling (yes, I know he is in fact
doing his best already).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:11 PM EDT |
This was not Oracle's finest hour and five minutes.
Oh
I don't know. I have been dealing with Oracle for over a decade now and if they
have had a finer hour and 5 mins I sure haven't seen it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IANALitj on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
Yesterday, there was a thread with this topic.
The first response was from PJ:
"Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:47 PM EDT
"The truth? I have reached the conclusion
that celebrity lawyers get more leeway."
Here, I think we are seeing the other side of the coin. Judge Alsup says:
"You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that
kind of argument?"
That is directly attributable to celebrity status, but I wouldn't call it giving
him leeway. It's putting him on a tighter leash.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rubberman on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT |
"So everybody gets to do more briefs, due by 9 PM tonight.
Still think you want to be a lawyer? I'm guessing not. And
did any of us guess that this judge can code? That is the
biggest surprise of the entire trial, to me. No wonder he
was able to comprehend the technical testimony. But it does
make me wonder, why then is he having such a hard time
figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted?"
Personally, and professionally (as a software engineer), I
think the judge is performing due diligence so whatever he
rules will not be overturned on appeal (one can hope). I am
sure, now, that he realizes that the entire API conundrum is
a real black hole that will negatively impact many
industries and companies. An albatross that he would not
want hanging around his neck![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
Our reporter's notes of what Judge Alsup said about this:
Judge: We
heard the testimony of Mr. Bloch. I couldn't have told you the first thing about
Java before this problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount of
programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a
hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone
would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an
accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the
marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make
that kind of argument?
I looked back through the Day 4 article, which was the day that Josh Bloch testified. I
couldn't find anything in the notes from that would match what the Judge was
saying, above (if he was in fact quoting Bloch's testimony today).
It looks
to me as if Judge Alsup was talking about his own experience, and using it like
a threat to say "don't try to pull the wool over my eyes about this".
Maybe
our reporter for today, if he or she reads this, could clarify how they
perceived the Judge's comment? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:40 AM EDT |
I feel sad that Juror 2 had to leave the case. To have spent all these weeks
sorting through technical issues and then be removed at the 10th hour because
of car trouble. She didn't go all the way, but here's my heartfelt thanks
for her sacrifice in serving. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hairbear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:01 AM EDT |
Crikey .... Boies got deep fried !
hairbear
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 06:31 AM EDT |
PJ, does the reporter for this day have a nym or a name to go by?
This was a truly amazing job, the closest to a real time verbatim transcription
that we have ever seen here.
Thank you reporter for such wonderful work!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Verbatim - Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 07:59 AM EDT |
Now, what happens if, in his reading in the jury room, the juror finds the
substance of one of those patents disclosed therein?
From what I've heard of these patents, it is not an unlikely occurrence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: qubit on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
From the closing statement by Jacobs (emphasis mine):
The
specification says the virtual machine is protected by patents. They could
have taken the GPL version of Java. That would have granted them patent
rights. [!] There was some concern there by Mr. Rubin that maybe Sun would
say patents weren't included. But that wasn't why they rejected the GPL; it's
because the GPL is viral, and the carriers wouldn't accept that. That's not the
issue here, though. He had a GPL option, and he didn't take
it.
This statement is definitely helpful for anyone who might
seek to use the OpenJDK or any other Sun/Oracle GPL-licensed code in the future.
I might suggest that people avoid Java anyhow, just to avoid having to deal with
Oracle. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
"Suppose they accelerated it two days."
No wonder Oracle is suing. It takes their programmers two days to write 9 lines
of code!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Programmer speed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
I don't understand how there could be any debate as to whether SSO can be
copyrighted or not, when it's applied to a programming language.
Take English for example - you HAVE to construct sentences in a specific order
for others to understand what you're trying to say. The structure of the
sentences is inherent to the language and is necessary for it to remain that
language. You change that - it's different language, then. Sure, we could all
understand what Yoda saying was :) But that's something different and can't be
applied to a precise science of programming.
Just my $.02 :)
Regards - dniq.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
It may not be that he is having a hard time. It may be he wants to
answer every possible argument with his decision, because he knows
what a mess it would be if it got overturned on appeal.
By the way rolling over and over on the floor laughing my guts out.
Who'd of thunk courtroom proceedings woud be high comedy?
Just hope this doesn't disqualify the judge!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|