|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
The judge almost certainly denied Google's immunity defense because (i) it's not
required anyway for Google to prevail given that APIs are ruled to be not
copyrightable, and (ii) if he accepted it then it would be appealed, thus
weakening the strength of his ruling.
Very strategic, he's a clever judge and made his ruling an immovable glacier.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
for your #1: The interface or "header" was ruled uncopyrightable. The
implementation code for many of those functions IS copyrightable. Google wrote
their own implementations with the exception of one 9-line function. I thought
this was very clear. Had Google taken the full source code for those 37 modules
it would be infringement. They only took the interface or uncopyrightable part.
So yes, the implication that there are copyrightable parts is correct.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: calris74 on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
Ha Ha...
First it was the copyrights that were the most important
Then it was the patents
Now it turns out that an injunction against shipping Android
(which can't happen now) was what was really important to
Oracle
LOL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: calris74 on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:38 PM EDT |
As of now, Google's decision to defend its position at a
trial has
paid off: it gets away unscathed, at least for
another couple of years, with
what it's done
So, Google is as guilty as sin - It's just that
Oracle
haven't found a way to prove it yet
Ergo, Google is 'assumed
guilty' and, even worse, no matter
what the appeal process yields, will remain
guilty of 'a
perfect crime'[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jkrise on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT |
Mr. Mueller has completed his homework and submitted the full essay to the
teacher. From the latest additions:
"The appeals court will have to decide whether a sweeping denial of
copyrightability is in line with statutory law and case law, or whether
copyrightability has to be allowed since the "sweeping proposition"
Judge Alsup is concerned about can always be dealt with in other ways."
-----
In my view, our friend Mueller feels Alsup should've allowed Oracle or Sun to
copyright APIs; and maybe decide in Google's favour on fair use.
This would've been less ideal in many ways. First, FRAND schemes would lock out
FOSS, and Android is also FOSS compliant product or technology.
It is also difficult to prescribe WHERE to draw the line in allowing APIs to be
vopyright - WHAT determines Complexity and thus Originality and hence
Copyrightability.
So I feel it is Mueller and friends who have been given a 2 year lease to
continue spouting FUD, before a higher Court permanently shuts the door on
Copyright protection for APIs.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jkrise on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:10 AM EDT |
Mueller says: "But his order on this particular issue of API
copyrightability happens to come down on the anti-property side of the
spectrum"
I would love to see RMS tapping Mueller on his head, and explaining:
"Copyright is not to be confused with intellectual property. In fact
Intellectual Property is a dishonest expression attempting to confuse the terms
Copyright, Patents, Trademarks and Trade secrets"
So just because Alsup has ruled that ideas contained in APIs can't be protected
by Copyright does not mean he is anti-capitalism or pro-communism. True
capitalism can only work in free markets, and free markets need competition, and
monopolies want protection from competition. That protection is granted by
patents, not copyrights.
Mueller himself claimed earlier that this case was mainly about Copyrights, not
Patents. For him to now declare that the Judge would've been better off agreeing
with Copyrightability just because it suits his masters' agenda, is not very
clever. Copyright governs a much wider spectrum of art and not just software or
APIs.
Any other ruling would've been a body blow to software, specially FOSS. Oracle
should be glad they lost, else their entire database business would collapse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:38 AM EDT |
Frankly I stopped caring about what Mueller said after the whole OOXML fiasco,
when he clearly revealed himself to be a corporate puppet for hire.
His credibility isn't just down to zero - it's in the negative. You can pretty
much
assume that the opposite of whatever he claims is the most likely to be the
unbiased truth.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 07:46 AM EDT |
If I have a tin of blue paint and paint a wall with it, then it is technically
correct (though silly and misleading) to say that I only used the blue paint
from the tin to paint the wall.
His statement does show his very deep desire not to accept reality.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT |
That's not what the blog post was about. The issue was whether
or not it was a corporate blog, with McNealy claiming it was just
a personal blog.. The SEC filing was evidence it was a corporate
blog. That is all that was claimed. The rest is smear tactics from
a not-so-beautiful mind.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
Judge Alsup clarifies that what was in the blog was insufficient for the
defense.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
Why?!
There was a basket he was in.
It had no bottom.
He fell out.
It was a sight to see.
Most here were not surprised.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
