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
Well, yeah | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
It's a circular argument.
Authored by: sd_ip_tech on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
Yes, they are upset over limited copy as it doesn't include the rest of APIs. Of
course, as you point out, then the argument would be intentional copy of entire
set. You can't fault BSF for representing their client but there have been some
specious and downright silly arguments presented in this case. Makes one wonder
if BSF/Oracle considered what would happen by burning bridges. Public does have
a short memory and this is not in the public eye in one explanation. So, they
think/thought they could get away with it? No harm to Oracle/BSF/Java?

---
sd_ip_tech

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Well, yeah
Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT

But only if Google copied the whole thing and paid beeeelions in extortion license fees.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I don't get the compatibility argument
Authored by: darrellb on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 06:49 AM EDT
Copyright infringement, patent infringement are the only things at issue in the
case. There is no such thing as fragementation under Copyright or Patent laws.
Oracle has no place raising anything about fragmentation.

The real issue behind Oracle's suit against Google is that Oracle has been
unable to make money from Android. Since not making money isn't an actionable
claim, Oracle stretches the law to fit the circumstances in an attempt to make
money from Android.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Of course
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT
Because then they would have a much better argument that Google needed to take a
license or that they infringed.

[ 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 )