|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:15 AM EDT |
9. Dr. Mitchell noted that rangeCheck was a "useful" component of
the library it was in, and that there was some "subtlety" to the code. Bloch
himself admits "the code is reasonably complex as its stands."
10.
Bloch knew that Sun had copyrighted rangeCheck.
11. Bloch copied
because he thought it would be "good engineering" to do so...
13.
Copying rangeCheck saved Google time — and time was very important to
Google...
Google would not have lightly violated company policy and
used someone like Bloch to develop Android Code unless Google believed it was
important to do so and that the benefit was worth it.
Google would
not have lightly violated company policy (and the law) and used sun's
copyrighted code unless Google believed it was important to do so and that the
benefit was worth it.
There you are! A noted professor, who is
completely impartial over the issue of software patents and copyrights and whose
university has no financial interests in the case, tells us that there was 'was
some "subtlety" to the code'. In addition, Bloch himself admits "the code is
reasonably complex as its stands."
Obviously, being subtle, it was
completely lost on the hackers in Groklaw, which rather diminishes them in my
view.
/sarcasm
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
