decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
science advancement | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 11:21 PM EDT
Thank you

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 11:21 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES document thread
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 11:22 PM EDT
Thank you for the work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic discussions
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 11:23 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

science advancement
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 03:31 AM EDT
If Oracle spent same time, effort and resources to make JAVA better, it would
have had much bigger benefit for public and oracle itself than with this stupid
lawsuit..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google Files Appeal Brief and Cross Appeal in Oracle v. Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:18 AM EDT
It is interesting to see in the Samuelson paper the Microsoft
is actually trying to circumvent 102(2) by using patents on
XML schemas (footnote 365).

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx

[ Reply to This | # ]

There are some who would say ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:04 AM EDT
... that "Harry Potter" serves no creative function either.

</humour>

[ Reply to This | # ]

This submission by Google earlier in the trial, summed it up for me..
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:42 AM EDT

...Google, like Connectix, implemented some but not all of the functions from the plaintiff’s software system, choosing only those functions necessary to accomplish its purpose.

For those functions, Google, like Connectix, ensured that it duplicated the same “entry points” and each function’s functionality, including the information sent to and from the system. Many of the Sony functions, like many of the J2SE functions, performed standard functions familiar to any programmer.

Google, like Connectix, wrote its own implementing code. Indeed, the key distinction between the present case and Sony, is that Connectix created intermediate copies of Sony’s implementing code, for which it had to rely on fair use. Google did not copy Oracle’s implementing code, and thus section 102(b) itself precludes copyright infringement liability...

I am sure Oracle lawyers know this but it's their work to try to obtain a favorable ruling for their client at whatever cost.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pamela Samuelson on "Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of ..."
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT
Please note footnote 365: Microsoft trying to circumvent
copyright law by applying for patent(s) on XML Schemas.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google Files Appeal Brief and Cross Appeal in Oracle v. Google ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 02:15 PM EDT
Since when do we just believe reporters? No questions asked?

Response from the Erasmus University (http://ww w.erasmusmc.nl/perskamer/archief/2013/4164294/?lang=en)

It should be clear that a virus cannot be patented, only specific applications related to it, like vaccines and medicines. Rumours that the Viroscience department of Erasmus MC would hamper research into the MERS coronavirus are clearly wrong and not based on facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Work of fiction or not?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 02:34 PM EDT
So Google claims "The Java Application Programming Interface
("API") is not a work of imaginative fiction"

Well.

I think there are style choices in the interface which are not obvious, that
take a while to appreciate, that escape a shallow inspection.

The API has an aesthetic. This aesthetic becomes noticeable when one switches
between different libraries.

As a small example, I could imagine if the API had been designed for, let's say
teenagers or children, it would have used different names, a different style.

So Google may claim there is no imagination here, but I doubt they can make a
good argument. The API is not only functional. In general, programming is about
which changes are easy to make. So the designers of the API made such choices,
and these choices are expressions of a particular view of the world, the world
of the programmers using the API, in the eyes of the designers.

Fun, isn't it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )