|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT |
Solving the same problem repeatedly shows that the code is neither novel nor
unique; just that the same logic is needed over and over. We are talking about
a range check function here![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:18 PM EDT |
It wasn't willfulness or impropriety of Google if Donor Guy was not supposed to
"keep the code when he left Sun".
Not that I want Oracle to sue Donor Guy, but the liability would be his alone
since that act took place -before- he worked for Google.
Further there is evidence that his "improper act" of giving the code
back to Sun in another context "washes Google's hands" was a private
and personal act of Donor Guy and not under Google's influence or control.
Further Google received the code not driectly from Donor Guy, but from Sun's
now-dirty hands, and now via the GPL.
Sun is the only one who knew, or could have known, that the code was not new
work. It also knew who the donor was, who the original author was, what
permissions and relationships they had regarding code and disclosure, and so
on.
Google just took up Apache's code, and Apache just took up Sun's OpenJDK code,
each under the license each gave to the next.
This is -not- infringement by any reading of the law.
This is a pure Sun-internal boo boo for not scrubbing their code when they knew
it was from a previous employee.
Further, Sun -needed- the rangeCheck() or equivalent function in OpenJDK to make
OpenJDK a viable offer. They may well have -known- the code was identical, or at
least willfully decided not to care that it might be, when they offered it. At
the time of it's offer, Sun's interest in OpenJDK was the puerile interest of
bringing a product to market to meet a demand.
It's a little lated for the prostitute to claim dispoilation of virginity at
this late date, having profited from their reproductive largess.
Sun -directly- benefited from releasing rangeCheck() as written in the GPL'd
OpenJDK.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
Here's your homework assignment. Research
what his testimony actually was.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
There is no testimony showing that Bloch took the rangechec code with him (or
any other proprietary code). In his testimony and deposition, he was asked if
he had copied the code. He said he did not know one time and the other time
said he could have since the names and formatting matched his style; he did not
say if he copied the code.
As for your other point about what other proprietary code he could have
"copied", Oracle has only been able to show that the nine lines of the
rangechec code is verbatim, and not the other 15 million lines of code in
Android. Oracle has not offered any evidence of copying beyond the nine lines
of rangechec code and the eight test files. If Google was going to gain some
benefit by copying code, they would not have gained that much by copying a
method that a high-scholar could write.
Speaking as a software developer, if after a period of years, I was given a task
to develop code to accomplish the same thing, I would probably write code that
was exactly the same as I had written years earlier. My choice of variable
names, formatting of key words, indenting of code is pretty much fixed at this
point in my career. I would not be surprised that Bloch could have reproduced
three statements for nine lines of code verbatim by accident.
I think it is unrealistic to expect a software developer to never repeat
himself, given that I write somewhere on the order of 30,000 lines of code per
year. A lot of time when I write a snippet of a program, I am recreating
something that I wrote previously. It is just that it is faster for me to
recreate the code rather than determine which program already used that code.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
