|
|
|
| Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:16 PM EDT |
The question would be (and I don't recall from the court reports) if the author
was employed by Sun at the time that he wrote the code. If he was, any
purported donation is irrelevant as it would automatically be a work for hire
and Sun would be the first owner of copyright.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
I spent some time looking at this to clarify in my mind when what
code was written. Here is what I found (sorry no references back
to where I found it - was a few days ago).
1. Bloch worked for Sun - During this time he was writing code for
Java. He or somebody else apparently wrote rangeCheck at this
time.
2. Bloch starts working for Google. His testimony is he copied
RangeCheck from the Sun Code. He did this and donated the Code to
OpenJDK (not a task he was paid for by Google).
3. Bloch then brings forward the RangeCheck function from OpenJDK
into JDK being developed for Google.
Clearly this is an infringement. All 9 lines (7 if not counting
the blanks is my understanding)...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pem on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
rangeCheck was apparently copied from Sun's array module.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:59 AM EDT |
It's worse than that.
Oracle appear to only have (c) on the collected works, NOT on the individual
components - and that appears to have been improperly lodged (The disc was
blank) - so as far as I can tell, they can't prove they own the (c) on the works
that are supposed to infringe.
Given that, it's a hard ask to see ANY legal basis for damages being awarded.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Original sin - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:58 AM EDT
- Original sin - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:44 AM EDT
- Original sin - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 06:04 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 04:29 AM EDT |
I've seen the code and it is trivial. It just compares a
beginning index and an ending index with an array length and
throws an exception if the indices aren't within the array.
A beginner could program it in a minute.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:34 AM EDT |
They have challenged the ownership of individual copyrights during the trial and
to this day.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
At least that's what I've seen reported. Not seen the files
or the reasons yet.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
