|
Authored by: eric76 on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
Regarding the case management course, what issues are left to be resolved?
The only thing I can think of is the damages for the small copyright violations
that were found, i.e. 9 lines of code plus some test programs.
Any others?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- google's fair use?(n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- Document 1204, Case Mgmt Conf, as text - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT
- Hooray! - Authored by: symbolset on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
- W00T! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:51 AM EDT
- Hooray! - Authored by: symbolset on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 01:16 AM EDT
- GREAT JOB, PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:36 PM EDT
- GREAT JOB, PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:59 PM EDT
- GREAT JOB, PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT
- GREAT JOB, PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- Counterclaims? - Authored by: mexaly on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:48 PM EDT |
please mention the mistake in the title of your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Music - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- Sort of OT - Google files EU complaint against Nokia, Microsoft etc - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
- OT: Extradition to US blocked in copyright case - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- what happened to Oracle's patent? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- Michigan J Boies - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:11 PM EDT
- Michigan J Boies - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT
- David Boies -- win some, lose some - Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT
- Lib-Ray project funded - Authored by: macrorodent on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:59 AM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:14 AM EDT
- Only one error? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 08:29 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Please mention the name of the news story in the title of the
top post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lockdown: free/open OS maker pays Microsoft ransom for the right to boot on users' computers - Authored by: Anonomous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:09 PM EDT
- string together a few Pis - Authored by: kawabago on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:08 AM EDT
- string together a few Pis - Authored by: Tufty on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:17 AM EDT
- string together a few Pis - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 07:58 AM EDT
- Laptop Pi - Authored by: ailuromancy on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT
- Laptop Pi - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- On ARM - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT
- On ARM - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:17 PM EDT
- 512 MB or RAM - Authored by: marcosdumay on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- Laptop Pi - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- string together a few Pis - Authored by: jonathon on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT
- No need, just use AMD. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- Lawyers, Ethics and milking the client - Authored by: complex_number on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Chromatix on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
SUMMARY OF RULING
So long as the specific code used to implement a
method is different, anyone
is free
under the Copyright Act to write his or her
own code to carry out exactly the
same function
or specification of any methods
used in the Java API. It does not matter that
the declaration or
method header
lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be
identical to
declare a
method specifying the same functionality — even when the
implementation is
different.
When there is only one way to express an idea
or function, then everyone is
free to do so and
no one can monopolize that
expression. And, while the Android method and
class names could
have been
different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have
worked,
copyright
protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
Please post all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ.
Please post the HTML as plain text so she can easily copy and
paste it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
Right now I'm on page 7, and I stand in awe:
[...] since there is
only one way to declare a given method functionality, everyone using that
function must write that specific line of code in the same way.
The same is true
for the “calls,” the commands that invoke the methods. To see why this is so,
this order will now review some of the key rules for Java programming. This
explanation will start at the bottom and work its way upward.
I
fully expect that his order will stand the test of time (i .e. appeal) and is an
exceptional piece of jurisprudence.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
From the conclusion, Judge Alsop specifically states that his is NOT stating
the Java API is inherently open. He's not ruling SSO in general is
protected. He's ruling that on the facts of Tis specific case Google does not
infringe.
What a letdown. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
I wonder what points Oracle will appeal [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
Whilst I didn't think Oracle would walk away with the claimed billions, I think
at one point I believe Oracle would get 60 or 70 million, and stated so here. I
never thought it would end in extreme embarrassment and a big fat zero (or very
negative if you include the legal bills) for Larry.
Congratulations to all those who saw it right.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- An apology - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- An apology - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:57 PM EDT
- An apology - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:59 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
After this ruling, and it looks like this tosses the 9 lines
of code as well as sequence, does Oracle have anything left,
other than appealing??
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
Footnote 3 (in part):
In the findings, the phrase “this order
finds . . .” is occasionally used to emphasize a point. The absence of this
phrase, however, does not mean (and should not be construed to mean) that a
statement is not a finding. All declarative fact statements set forth in the
order are factual findings.
Heh, BSF love to try and claim things
about various rulings... this seems to have been designed to shortcut any
argument that "but the Judge didn't say it was a factual finding"!
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT |
Expect he's trying hard to put a positive 'Oracle' spin on
it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
page 5, line 14: This is very close to saying the
Java
API had 166
“folders” (packages) ... Google replicated the
exact names and exact functions
of virtually all of these 37
packages
May be, "all of these 166" ?
Is this a mistake?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
Oracle has made much of nine lines of code
that crept into both
Android and Java. This circumstance is
so innocuous and overblown by
Oracle that the actual
facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set
forth below
for the benefit of the court of appeals. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
Page 13, lines 9-11...
"Oracle has made much of nine lines of
code that crept into both Android and Java. This circumstance is so innocuous
and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge,
will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of
appeals."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
[..] fragmentation, imperfect interoperability, and Oracle’s angst
over it illustrate the character of the command structure as a functional system
or method of operation.
The Honorable Judge really has a fine
sense of humor.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
I'm also relieved that good sense has prevailed.
Thank you Google for fighting, and not caving in.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pem on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
Oh, sure, this case took a long time, and the appeal is practically inevitable
(unless Larry becomes a Hare Krishna or something).
But...
The next time a troll goes forum-shopping, Alsup is guaranteed not to be on the
short list of technologically-challenged plaintiff-friendly jurists.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
Written in plain ordinary English. Uses common sense. Wonderful.
A pity we have to had to go through the three ring circus, the expensive
marathon of discovery, the legal trickery dickery, and the obfuscation confusion
and grandstanding in front of a jury before common sense is finally allowed to
speak.
Couldn't this order have been written a year ago and saved us all a lot of
anxiety and bother? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
How soon does Oracle have to decide whether or not to appeal this decision? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thirty days - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:51 PM EDT
|
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
as reported by Caleb Garling on Wired. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
Is our popular shill waiting for instructions from his employers on how to
spin it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT |
I like this bit (page 38, lines 26-28): "The immediate point
is this: fragmentation, imperfect interoperability, and
Oracle’s angst over it illustrate the character of the
command structure as a functional system or method of
operation."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
In this litigation, Oracle has made much of
this problem, at
times almost leaving the impression that
if only Google had replicated all 166
Java API packages,
Oracle would not have sued.
While fragmentation
is a legitimate business consideration,
it begs the question whether or not
a license was
required in the first place to replicate some or all of
the
command structure. (This is especially so in as much
as Android has not
carried the Java trademark, and Google
has not held out Android as fully
compatible.) The
immediate point is this: fragmentation, imperfect
interoperability, and Oracle’s angst over it illustrate the
character of the
command structure as a functional system or
method of
operation.
He really nailed Oracle (and Ellison) on
that! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
with Oracle_v_Google {
import java.API.copyrightability.judgement;
boolean java_API_is_copyrightable FALSE; //Symbolic reference
}[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
37 (base 53(decimal)) = 166 (base 10(decimal)) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
Judge Alsup's ruling is so thorough that it goes far beyond a mere factual
denial of Oracle's claims on the basis of law. As the many excellent paragraphs
that people have quoted here show, his grasp of the subject is so amazingly well
grounded that he has explained the technical basis of his decision more clearly
than many a CompSci professor could do. I'm very impressed (being an ex-CompSci
professor myself).
What's more, he doesn't just deny Oracle's claims, he
politely yet very forcefully indicates why they are beyond ludicrous. If it
were expressed any more clearly, he would be telling the Oracle lawyers that
their case lies somewhere between incompetent on legal grounds and deliberately
deceitful on technical grounds.
This is one of the most entertaining and
technically well informed rulings that I have ever read. Alsup is a real tour
de force and a great credit to his profession, and unfortunately a rarity. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jkrise on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 10:50 PM EDT |
Just got to read Oracle employee / devotee / slave's mysterious take on Alsup's
verdict:
1. Mystery 1: "Judge says Google only used uncopyrightable elements of 37
Java APIs in Android" This is the title of our friend Mueller's post. To a
normal reader, it implies that theJudge agreed or asserted that there were
indeed Copyrightable elements of Java APIs or indeed any APIs. Can someone
explain this strange reading / interpretation of the verdict, or alternately
send me some stuff which Mueller smokes?
2. "Largely the same people who are jubilant about Judge Alsup's decision
on copyrightability also claimed that a blog post by former Sun CEO Jonathan
Schwartz, and his related testimony at the trial, proved that Google couldn't be
held liable in any way, a theory that Judge Alsup has now held to be
"bizarre"."
From where in the ruling does the Great Mueller get this bit of intelligence?
I will keep adding more mysteries to the list, since our friend says he is still
'working' on his latest missive.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ruling from strength - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:09 PM EDT
- Florian Mueller's mysterious take... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT
- The ever shifting story of 'what's the important bit' - Authored by: calris74 on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT
- Florian Mueller's mysterious take... - Authored by: calris74 on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:38 PM EDT
- Florian Mueller's mysterious take...Part 2 - Authored by: jkrise on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT
- Florian Mueller's mysterious take...Part 3 - Authored by: jkrise on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:10 AM EDT
- Florian Mueller's mysterious take... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:38 AM EDT
- Only used the blue paint from the tin - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 07:46 AM EDT
- Florian Mueller's mysterious take... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT
- On point 2 - refer to doc 1203 Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law On Equitable Defenses - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- there's two or three posters here adding to FM's name awareness - Authored by: BJ on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:40 PM EDT
|
Authored by: OmniGeek on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
I think this ruling is going to be right up there with Gates and Sony as a
foundational guide to copyright treatment of software APIs.
The ruling is a gem! It is quite impressive in its careful construction, obvious
understanding of what software is about, and evident attention to detail (and to
nailing shut every possible crack that BSF might try to to slither through to a
retrial on appeal). This judge (and his clerks, to give credit to the whole
team) can really write!
It will be purely fascinating to see what the appeals court makes of this mess
(and no less interesting to see what BSF dredges up to try to use as a pretext
for appeal). This ruling looks pretty appeal-resistant.
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:43 PM EDT |
was that the ruling would apply to vanilla header files containing nothing but
declarations, but leave open the possibility that more complex languages such as
the c++ templates, or classes implemented in header files.
while i've only skimmed the ruling, at least page 10 and its example seem
squelched my concern for now, pleasantly suprised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- one concern I had - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:13 AM EDT
- yep - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:29 AM EDT
- yep - Authored by: Chromatix on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:04 AM EDT
- one concern I had - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:52 PM EDT |
We have seen a lot of explanations of and comments on API copyright law, many
created by members here. Judge Alsup's ruling contains the best summary of API
copyright law I have ever seen. He hits all the bases and discusses all of the
relevant previous cases. He shows how Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow
Dental Laboratory, Inc (from 1986) was:
[the] high-water mark
of copyright protection for the structure, sequence and organization of computer
programs.
It was also the only appellate decision found by the undersigned judge
that affirmed (or directed) a final judgment of copyrightability on a structure,
sequence and organization theory.
Oracle based their case on
the unsubstantiated notion that copyright protection of APIs has gotten stronger
and stronger since the 1996 Lotus v. Borland decision. Alsup tore this
notion to shreds. In fact, I don't think I can top Alsup's own summary of his
summary:
[...]
the above summary of the development of the law
reveals a trajectory in which enthusiasm for protection of “structure, sequence
and organization” peaked in the 1980s, most notably in the Third Circuit’s
Whelan decision. That phrase has not been re-used by the Ninth Circuit since
Johnson Controls in 1989, a decision affirming preliminary injunction. Since
then, the trend of the copyright decisions has been more cautious. This trend
has been driven by fidelity to Section 102(b) and recognition of the danger of
conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be
conferred only by patent.
--- Our job is to remind
ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:36 AM EDT |
First of all many thanks to Judge Alsup, for me this ruling
has restored some faith in the U.S. legal system, it shows
that the system can work, which is something I have come to
doubt.
What does it mean for Android though? Will there be more
Software Developers moving to Android? Now that Android is
safe to use for Java developement without the cost.
Seems to me that some large Java Shops should be considering
Android for future developement as it has now, at last,
become what Java should have been... FREE! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Oliver on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:55 AM EDT |
The Supreme Court rejected the notion that
copyright law
was meant
to reward authors for the “sweat of the brow.”
This meant
that we should not
yield to the temptation to award
copyright
protection merely because a lot of
sweat went into the work.
The
Supreme Court concluded that protection only
extended to the
original
components of an author’s work.
If
only the Patent Office would take this idea to heart.
Just because
it is hard
doesn't mean it is original or protectable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rfrazier on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 05:28 AM EDT |
After reading the ruling late last night on the train, I had a pretty strong
impression about what the Alsup was doing in this ruling. (Of course, I've had
strong impressions which turned out to be completely wrong-headed. So, with
regard to my impressions, I "trust, but verify".) The ruling was so
interesting that I read it reasonably carefully (also, I had some down time,
since I was on a very late train, on the way home).
Throughout the proceedings, Alsup asked Google and Oracle to provide him briefs
on various matters, both legal and technical. I think that he wrote this as much
as a brief for the Appeals Court as a final ruling. Perhaps that is standard
practice, but other final rulings haven't looked like that to me. They have
looked like defences of the ruling.
No doubt he *expects* his ruling to be appealed. I suspect that he *welcomes*
being appealed and would welcome the Appellate Court providing a substantive
ruling giving guidance on these matters. (Okay, folks, let's get some settled
case law on this.)
The very first statement of the ruling,
"This action was the first of the so-called “smartphone war” cases tried to
a jury",
suggests that there is a new concern arising, there will be lots of cases in the
area of concern, and District Courts are going to need guidance, both as a help
in being fair, and to cut down the work of the (District and Appeals) Courts. To
use one of his phrases, that first
sentence certainly seems to be doing some "heavy lifting".
I think that it is there precisely to let the Appeals Court see that the guy in
the trenches, the District Court judge, sees "there is trouble ahead",
and that he wants them to lend a hand.
The time he took in discussing the settled and unsettled law is briefing them
on
the relevant law. The Appeals judges will have their clerks test the claims he
made about the law, but, no doubt, will "trust but verify"
Similarly, the effort he made with the technical descriptions is for the benefit
of those on the Appeals Court who don't have his technical background.
It looks to me like he thinks it will be doing everyone a favour if there is
some clear guidance in this area, and he is briefing what he thinks it should
be, but, in any case, making absolutely clear what sort of things are at stake.
In any case, that's the impression I came away with. (I don't do law.)
I started wondering whether the Appeals Court will consider their ruling as a
brief to the Supremes.
Best wishes,
Bob
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
Well, it looks like Ellison and Ballmer will be meeting to
discuss their next steps in their desire to destroy "free and
open". Now I see that it will cost you about $100 USD to
run any other OS instead of Winblows on your new computer.
I'll be keeping my old ones, thank you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: digger53 on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:00 AM EDT |
Great!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
To top everything else off, I think this ruling confirms that His Honor is now
qualified for at least an entry-level position as a Java programmer, should he
so desire. :)
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
How long can Oracle take to decide if they will appeal?
How long can Florian Microsoft keep the appeal FUD cloud spewing?
Since this is BSF, can they ask for not less than a week?
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
Why will it be remanded?!
Maybe everyone else can see it, but I can't where Judge Alsup says that or
something to that effect.
Please, give me a pointer.
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
Obviously the judge was biased because he has written
programs. If he rules that the API's are copyright-able,
then he has to go back and look at all of the code he's ever
written....
If Oracle is stupid enough to use that, I hope they choke on
it all the way to bankruptcy court. And hopefully whoever
picks up the leftovers of their company actually IMPROVES
their products (or at least their practices in
creating/managing their products).
Have a great weekend.:)
Patrick.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:56 PM EDT |
I appreciate this thorough analysis of the ruling, but I take
objection to one
statement made in passing: "If Oracle wanted that, it
should have gone for a
patent."
Nobody should have the kind of power that software patents
impose, and
nobody "should" try to get such power. What should happen is
the
abolition of software patents.
See http://endsoftpatents.org
RMStallman
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
I felt this ruling deserved a thorough read through and I am glad I have, as it
makes very interesting reading.
1st off, Oracle will have problems refuting the logic of the ruling.
They will be better off trying to get it thrown out on some procedural
technicality, if at all.
2nd thing to strike me was Bois's strategy:
Ambush is Key. He comes up with an esoteric, but potentially valid, new reading
of the law and bases his case on this.
As we saw initially, you can't see how he can be serious as he is doing all he
can not to tell you the heart of his argument.
Hence the famous lack of specificity.
This is deliberate, if he is to be successful with his ambush and spring his new
theory on the defence and the court, later is better.
So in this case the defence is building arguments to counter the upfront copying
allegations, not seeing the API copying thrust until late in the day.
Also looking at the previous cases explained by the Judge as being on point,
there _was_ potentially some wiggle room between the case law. Bois strategy is
not illogical, high stakes yes, but interesting nevertheless.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SLi on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
It seems clear to me that even PJ wasn't at all times
confident that the
judge would rule this way. Neither can
one be entirely sure that the courts of
appeal will view it
the same way as this judge, although the ruling certainly
is
remarkably well thought and solid.
Still, judge Alsup himself went to
great lengths to
minimize the need for a trial on remand in case an appeals
court comes to a different conclusion. It's hard to imagine
that he would have
done that if he thought there's virtually
no chance for a remand. Should we
really question his
judgment about that?
I'm not sure about this, but I'd
imagine that the vast
majority of the costs in a lawsuit such as this are spent
in
the district court. Appealing is relatively cheap, and the
potential payoff
is quite big. Quite simply, I think that
the expected payoff of an appeal is
positive for Oracle. The
reward is unlikely, but if they get it, it's quite
likely to
be a big reward. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|