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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Oracle is correct but irrelevant | 380 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle v. Google - Now Back to the Copyright Question and How Oracle Fragments Java
Authored by: ais523 on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:39 AM EDT
I think Oracle's point is that the list in the method header of thrown
exceptions could have been expressed in a different way, specifying only the
minimum set of types needed to cover all the possible exceptions without
introducing new ones. This is technically correct in an "it would work and
be compatible with existing programs" sense, but it'd break a whole load of
IDEs, because although the exception-handling code you've shown there would
still work, the IDEs would no longer have enough information to generate it.

In this trial, Oracle's been doing quite a lot of saying things that are
technically correct but misleading. (The way that symbolic reference question's
worded, for instance, Oracle could probably truthfully answer that numeric
references at one location in the code don't preclude the existence of symbolic
references at an entirely different unrelated location in the code. Which is
correct, but irrelevant.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle is correct but irrelevant
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT
Oracle is correct. That code would still work and the throws portion of the
method signature would probably not need to changed if throwing super type
exceptions. If the method threw SomeSignatureException that inherited from
SignatureException, everything would be fine.

Of course, it's irrelevant as the super type would have the same SSO plus
extensions which would violate the copyright on the SSO of
SignatureException if Oracle had their way.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

And another thing
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:48 AM EDT
If the exceptions are functional rather than creative expression and if the
exceptions are short phrases and if the exceptions are ideas rather than
creative expression then they are uncopyrightable.

Just in case the court does not understand that just because a program compiles
using a modified API does not mean that it is still compatible with the program
that had the original API.

Finally, what is the whole work in which the exception creative expression is
fixed? Where is the registration for that whole work?

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Now Back to the Copyright Question and How Oracle Fragments Java
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT
it is worse than this. Client code would no longer compile if Android used
supertypes in the throw clauses, since the catch clauses would no longer be
broad enough. Oracle is simply being dishonest--having the same throws
clause is necessary for compatibility.

On the other hand, the order technically doesn't matter for if code compiles,
but
keeping it the same improves the level of compatibility when it comes to tool
support. It is important that your IDE experience doesn't change when using
two versions of the platform.

[ 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 )