|Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT|
|After commenting, I thought of potential Oracle retorts.|
'This is based on a complete misrepresentation of what the JCP was commissioned
to do. They were supposed to define new APIs for the Standard. The third party
implementations referred to by the amended agreement was only for open source
implementations for these new APIs.'
'The Specification provided had copious protectable creative expression added to
make this task less onerous. The very presence of the creative expression makes
the wholesale implementation of the API libraries a copyright infringement.
Sun's public statements are being twisted to say what they did not.'
My response: have Oracle provided, or still have in their possession, any proof
that Harmony used or copied anything into their implementation that could not
have come from a third party deduction of the API from the program actions? If
Oracle have not, then what Harmony did was completely within the law.
Have Oracle produced any evidence that Google copied protectable copyright
protected materials in addition to what they copied from Harmony?
'It is in evidence that Dan Bornstein copied ideas and other materials from the
two books "Java in a Nutshell," and "The Java Language
Specification" (James Gosling and Bill Joy). These books had to contain the
protected creative expression used in implementing the APIs.'
My response: Any creative expression in those books that were the creative
expression from the Sun proprietary Java API documentation added to the API
compilable code files are an infringement matter between the authors and Sun.
'Java in a Nutshell' was first published by The O'Reilly Media in 1996. 'The
Java Language Specification' was published by Addison-Wesley in 1996. There have
been no suits of copyright infringement brought against either of these books to
this day. The authors (James Gosling and Bill Joy) were Sun employees at the
time and it is inconceivable that Sun were unaware, from 1996 to the present
day, of what was in these books.
Oracle have put no evidence before the court that the creative expression at
issue was copied from the books by either Harmony or Google into the API
implementation. Anything else used from the books by Harmony and/or Google is
concepts, facts and ideas or is required for functionality or compatibility
reasons and is not protectable by copyright.
I know what you are thinking;
n 1: a psychological disorder characterized by delusions of persecution or
I am not deluded. Oracle really are out to get us.
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
- Supplementaries - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:15 AM EDT
- Supplementaries - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT