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
Sony v. Connectix | 148 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Sony v. Connectix
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:31 AM EDT
Also, Sony did not make any claims that the BIOS API functionality or its SSO
was protected, and so no ruling was made on that, so I don't think that it
creates any precedent one way or the other for Oracle's claims of the SSO being
protected by copyright.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sony v. Connectix
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:35 AM EDT
Connectix definitely had to copy the Sony firmware API and ABI for
compatibility, how else would the commercial games that expect those syscalls to
work run? Google only had to copy the API, Dalvik has a different ABI.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

.;.for compatibility purposes...
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:22 PM EDT
So, Google stayed to an SSO that was allowed to roam freely in the wild through
Harmony and encouraged by Sun's CEO for compatibility. Oracle has been crying
of fragmentation risks, but Google stressed comptability. I have a feeling
that, had Google gone it alone for a new SSO, this suit would be about them
actually having fragmented the market with calls to have them stick with Sun's
blessed and publicly-available SSO.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sony v. Connectix
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT
The nice thing is that if by some miraculous chance, Oracle wins this lawsuit,
then Oracle just sealed it's own fate, as it's core product, the Oracle Database
was initially a clone (100% code copied) from IBMs database product at the
time.

Plus, they'll seal their fate with regards to a new cloud api they are trying to
get others to use.

Kind of stupid on Oracle's part... okay - REALLY stupid on Oracle's part.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

SSO of API is a legal fiction
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:07 AM EDT
Before this SSO of API thing becomes set in stone in legal precedent, perhaps
the law should take note of the fact that programmers really haven't a clue what
the lawyers are talking about when they use this term. It would be nice if the
law tried to stay approximately related to reality. It is hard enough to
understand the law when it talks about real things.

[ 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 )