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 v. Google - Now Back to the Copyright Question and How Oracle Fragments Java | 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: pem on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT
Yeah, I put it (and my observations on it) under newspicks, above.

Pretty slimy.

[ 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 @ 10:50 AM EDT
"This is not a guy who takes on frivolous cases."
Guess he doesn't remember the whole SCO debacle ...

-Ish

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Now Back to the Copyright Question and How Oracle Fragments Java
Authored by: ionic on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT
"David Boies is one of the handful of smartest lawyers in the world, “the
Tiger Woods of the legal profession.”"

and we all saw how Tiger Woods eventually fell from grace due to his dubious
moral compass...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not a good article
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT
2005 presentation to Google’s top managers that said Google “must” take a license from Sun

Not quite sure how he attaches so much importance to that. Even if it definitively happened, it doesn't make the statement true. I can insist that my employer "must" give me a 20,000% raise, but it doesn't mean I get my beelions.

Google got lucky here and Schmidt’s feet weren’t held to the fire, but I’m not willing to forget that moment.
Right, okay... I think we can see where this article is going, and how little weight will be applied to the merits of the case.
[Inane rant about how godly Boies is]... If David Boies thinks Oracle has a strong enough case to justify spending years of his life on, I’m inclined to take that position seriously.

Translation: if a lawyer I worship says something, I take it as a sign I don't need to think for myself.

There are a lot of issues in the case, not least that a lot of Java is open source and that the copyright status of APIs is unclear, but fundamentally it seems reasonable for the owner of Java to expect to profit when others profit from Java.

Translation: as a former litigator, I know full well that the law is important, but I will ignore it completely based on my belief that Oracle is fundamentally entitled to something based on buying Sun without due diligence.

If we don’t protect inventions and creativity, people won’t invent and create.

Translation: I haven't really thought this through, but if I come out with good soundbytes people may not notice.

After all, if all the Android technology was so easily derived from open source code, why did Google need to hire “a load of Sun engineers who worked on Java?”

Translation: I haven't actually read any of the trial reports, nor ever used either Java or Android. I have no understanding of either the technology or the law surrounding it, and no idea what went into the Android development process. People should still respect my opinion because I am a "former litigator".

How could anyone come to the conclusion that Android was easily derived from anything? There's a massive massive amount of original work in the project which doesn't come from any other source.

I am not a former litigator, nor a current one, but I have seen plenty of trash articles in my time, and that ticks all the boxes.

[ 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 @ 12:28 PM EDT
Let them keep fudding away. All it will do is turn future
java programmers to some other language because they will
realize how mean and two-faced Oracle is. Sun said great!
Oracle bought Sun. Oracle says we are going to sue the pants
of you. Would YOU use java after witnessing that kind of
behaviour? I won't. It is a good thing Dalvic is not java.
I wouldn't be surprised if Google starts to migrate from
their java-like subset to some other more welcoming language. I bet that would
really put the frosting on
Ellison's cake!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The "smoking gun"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT
I'm tired of reading about the "Google “must” take a license from Sun"
bit and how that means that Google is in the wrong.

Wasn't it an engineer, not a lawyer, who said that?

If this is so relevant to the trial - isn't Schwartz's blog even more so? And
that is more legally binding, IMHO.

But again, IANAL.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If David Boies thinks Oracle has a strong enough case ..
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT
> If David Boies thinks Oracle has a strong enough case to
> justify spending years of his life on, I’m inclined to
> take that position seriously.

If Oracle thought they had a strong enough case then they wouldn't have needed
“the Tiger Woods of the legal profession.” to present it. Anyway what does that
mean, is he accusing Boies of sleeping around ?

As for Boises spending years of his life, it was all at several hundred dollars
per hour, who cares whether the case is 'strong enough' at that rate. Losing
just means more billing of Oracle for the appeals.

[ 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 )