|
|
|
| Authored by: FreeChief on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
| Descibe it in the title.
— Programmer in Chief
This
proves I am spending way too much time reading Groklaw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
| :¬) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
"And in the end, that is pretty much what he did, and he determined that
the Java APIs' SSO was not protectable. But don't you think if you were in the
classroom that day that you would have been saying to yourself, "I suspect
this judge can code"? I would, just by his expressions."
Yes, but I was equally impressed by Mr. Jacobs:
"MR. JACOBS: I think it's a different use of the term perhaps. In the world
of this dispute, a method declaration is a statement that defines an API
element. So the declarations for the different kinds of elements, packages,
classes, interfaces, fields and methods are done differently, but they all
include the name of the element and define many of the relationships the element
has to other API elements. The method declaration includes the name of the
method, the type returned by the method, the parameters of the method, if any,
each of which have a type and a name. And optionally a method declaration can
begin with a modifier, like public or static, and may be followed by the
exceptions that the method shows. And then in the implementation the declaration
is followed by the Java code that carries out the function of the method, even
if the function is literally to do nothing. I think that's a different meaning
of declaration than your Honor is".
That is not bad at all for someone trained as a lawyer! I am not sure how much
programming Mr. Jacobs knows by own experience, but it sure sounds like he
understood it well. He is improving on the Judge, don't you think?
In my view, Alsup and Jacobs were both impressive.
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: FreeChief on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
| Put interesting comments on off-topic subjects here. For example,
discuss a different legal issue. "Ta." is an example of an uninteresting
comment. Try to write complete sentences, and spell correctly. We will cut you
some slack, because typos happen, and English is complicated, but if you aren't
even trying you may be ridiculed.
— Programmer in Chief
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple apologizes for Apple Maps - Suggests Google Maps - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- Bloomberg: Samsung Can Seek to Lift Galaxy Tab 10.1 Sales Ban, Court Says - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- Feds snoop on social-network accounts without warrants - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- Ta - Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT
- Wow - Awesome work - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- appeals court kicks back galaxy tab injunction - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- Microsoft’s plan to save America. - Authored by: squib on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- Microsoft Bing jumps in bed with Klout - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- Dog is town's only certified cop - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 04:33 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
ta
---
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: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
| Very enjoyable commentary, thank you PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
The judge's description missed the distinction between
declaration and definition, which is important in a case
about APIs. The judge's mention of "end sub" makes it clear
he was thinking about definition, which is not correct.
Jacobs' long-winded reply, including mention of optional
modifiers for visibility and scope ("public" and "static")
certainly wasn't very edifying, but it served him well: his
whole case was that declarations are copyrightable, so it
helps if he makes them sound difficult and complicated, with
many degrees of freedom. Also, the subtext was "don't even
try to out-technical me", which was probably very useful as
well. Most judges might be scared off and just accept
anything Jacobs said as technically accurate; luckily Alsup
isn't that kind of person, but I'm sure it made him extra
careful not to make technical pronouncements before he was
sure he understood the tech. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
Q. It says.
"What we've been asked to do by Larry and Sergey
is investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android Android and
Chrome."
Do you see that?
A. I can read the document, yes.
Q.
Does that refresh your recollection that you knew who Mr. Lindholm was and, in
fact, asked him to investigate what technical alternatives exited to Java for
Android in or about August of 2010?
I find this exchange
rather odd. The lawyer is trying to read something into the quote which is
simply not there. It makes me wonder whether Boies has any experience with
working for a large company. Page is one of the heads of the company. You would
have to go several levels down the management chain before you would get to
someone who is actually going to do the work. From the statement quoted above,
you couldn't even conclude that Page even know the author of the e-mail, let
alone any of the people it was addressed to.
I worked for a company
that had at least an order of magnitude more employees than Google does. Our
business unit did several hundred million dollars a year in business, but I
doubt that the management board could even find our city on a map. Yet, projects
would be be phrased as "the board has asked us to ...".
If I had been
on that jury, I would have come to the conclusion that Boies was a prize twit.
He seemed to be "winging" it, hoping to come up with something he could use.
Instead he was wasting everyone's time pursuing a line of questioning that
anyone with experience in business could have told him was not supported by the
e-mail.
A number of years ago I was in a lecture covering basic
business law (for engineering students) where a lawyer told a story about a case
he had previously worked on. He had his witnesses all lined up and knew what
answers they would give to each of his questions. His opponent had come in
unprepared and was "winging" it. At one point the opposing lawyer said "your
honour, I object!. My opponent has prepared his witnesses for these answers!".
The judge answered "and if you had prepared your witnesses, we wouldn't be here
this long".
Having seen his performance with SCO and now Oracle I
really do have to wonder what makes people think that Boies is worth his
fee.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oracle v. Google Trial Transcript - Day Three, April 18, 2012, Larry Page on the Stand ~pj - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 09:36 PM EDT
- Oracle v. Google Trial Transcript - Day Three, April 18, 2012, Larry Page on the Stand ~pj - Authored by: mirrorslap on Saturday, September 29 2012 @ 02:33 AM EDT
- Value of BSF => Willing to go after anything, no worry about consequences, financial, moral,... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
