|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:40 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
PJ explained. By giving this to Oracle, he barred them from
using that as reason for an appeal.
I personally don't like his use of 'a reasonable jury' to
justify this, but I'm not a judge who has to balance harm to
Oracle and Google and the world.
And as a bonus, in this judgement he points out how pathetic
a claim it was by Oracle. It would be lovely to see Oracle
explaining to an appeal court how very important those 9
lines are with reference to this judgement.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jonathon on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT |
I had to read his Java code example twice, to be sure I wasn't looking at a
range check function.
I suspect he deliberately chose his example, to show how trivial range check is.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|