|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
Failure to imagine that some third party would buy up Sun and then come after
Google with an utterly unprecedented legal theory?
Just as an experiment, go ahead and try it sometime - while you are doing a
business deal, just tell the other party "I'm sorry, I'd like to deal with
you based on what you are, and what you do, and what you say; but, to protect
myself for the future, I am going to negotiate with you as though you are a
deceitful, dishonest, backstabbing SOB, because you might become one in the
future."
Let us know how that works out.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
This case was totally unprecedented. There'd been nothing like it, and no
claims like it, in the past.
Of course you are welcome to try and come up with an equivalent.
Remember though that Oracle failed to, and their lawyers had lots of
money to do research with...
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
Otherwise you would have recognized just how unreasonable Oracle choose to
be. As an example of that unreasonableness I direct you to Oracle insisting on
going after "infringer's profits" on the 9 lines of code found to be infringed
even after the Judge pointed out they're best option is statutory
damages.
Given the Judge's opinion on Google's reliance of Sun's public
statements: I don't think an answer of "I do not believe API's are protectable
by copyright" would have been sufficient. Just my humble non-legal opinion on
that particular item. That comes from the specific clause in the Judge's order
that says:
Google’s evidence of implied consent at most establishes
Oracle’s inaction.
It's not unreasonable to think the Judge would
hold the same view with such a non-legally binding statement of non-belief. As
a result, the only safe way to have it covered is to get explicit permission
granted. But if you have to get explicit permission, that means you yourself
think the item is coverable under Copyright. To get something granted that you
believe isn't covered by copyright is like getting explicit permission for
exercising your fair use rights. But then... if you have to get fair use
covered, it no longer fits within the purposes of fair use. As the RIAA was
fond of saying:
Fair Use = unauthorized = illegal
And the Courts were
pretty blunt in informing the RIAA on their opinion of that
logic.
Sorry... your logic with finding fault with Google fails in some
spectacular ways when measured against areas of Copyright Law such as fair use
and when taking into consideration an entity which has decided not to be
reasonable.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
Google was agressive. Sure. AND it's always better to have an agreement where
the lawyers are concerned to prevent unreasonable actions such as this. They
tried and couldn't get one so went another route just as legal. Typical business
decision. I find no fault.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
Google was fairly aggressive. They did an end run around
the structure Sun had built to get money out of Java. I
believe their assessment was that Sun wouldn't sue and that,
if Sun did sue, Sun would lose.
Overall, their process seemed to be...
Yes, Sun did make Java.
Okay, let's try paying them. The trademark's something.
Oh, they want in on the project? C-level performers will
waste our time. Not worth it. Let's make Dalvik instead.
Don't think they'll be able to sue us.
Sun accepted their actions as better for the Java ecosystem
than Google choosing something else, but I don't believe
they were happy with Google's decision.
Google didn't bother asking for assurances because they
wouldn't have gotten them. I am a bit surprised that they
didn't try the:
'Okay, we're making Dalvik. You won't be involved. And you
have no grounds to sue. But, we'd love to use the Java
trademark. We'd pay xxM for it and licenses to everything
you have. Take it or leave it. We won't be making this
offer again.'
--Erwin
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
Its more than a little bizarre to blame this litigation on Google. Except for
the 9 lines of code, the jury found no infringement of anything.
That's pretty much an exoneration of Google's conduct.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
