decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Your point is -wrong-... | 402 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Your point is -wrong-...
Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:28 PM EDT
The "you" in your formation is not Google, it'd Donor Guy.

The vague question of "what else he might [have taken]" is immaterial
to this case.

Sun has Unclean Hands by profiting from Donor Guy's "improper" actions
since they profited in reputation and such by releasing the "tainted"
OpenJDK.

Google had no way to know that Apache Harmony was in any way tainted because Sun
didn't exercise due diligence in its dealings with an ex-employee (or it -did-
so exercise said diligence and realized it didn't care about the
"infringement" at the time since it furthered their goal of releasing
OpenJDK in what they -knew- was a open license).

Your point is basically a "credit default swap" applied to
"intellectual property", if accepted as kosher it will lead to an
intellectual market collapse unless "intellectual property workers"
are eternally slave to their first employer.

[It is also "normal" in the field to take some representative code
with you when you leave a previous employer so that you have "code
samples" to show prospective employers. You -aren't- supposed to put that
code into the new employer's pot of course. But this is just like any engineer
keeps copies of his field notebooks pretty much forever, and always has. So to
us finding famous people's papers and writings making their way into collections
and libraries when they die. Keeping your own code is not like stealing a fax
machine when you leave. It is your employer's legacy but it is your own legacy
as well. Unless it's classified in which case the government gets to lock it in
a box.]

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You're missing my point
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 11:38 AM EDT
> If you "stole" rangeCheck from your previous employer, what else
did you take?

Given that Oracle analyzed all 15m LOC and came up with exactly 7 non-blank
lines of copied code, I would say you "stole" 7 LOC and 2 blank lines
in total.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )