decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook


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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Off Topic Thread Here... | 118 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:32 PM EDT

Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:33 PM EDT

Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:34 PM EDT

Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:35 PM EDT

Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps what Google meant to say is..
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:57 PM EDT
The Java Application Programming Interface ("API") is not a work of
imaginative fiction, however Oracle's lawsuit IS!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reformat the quoting of Mueller
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 09:08 PM EDT

great stuff here, but I would - if I were you - stick to the convention of
the body text be your words, and Mueller's text be quotations; you risk lazy
journalists putting Florian's words in your mouth because they are in black and


[ Reply to This | # ]

Just how far can Oracle go before ...
Authored by: nsomos on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 10:40 PM EDT
I am wondering just how far Oracle and Boies can go
in 'creatively mis-stating' what Google has written
before some judge somewhere will take them to task for it?

Is there any limit to Oracle's greed and Boies willingness
to twist words beyond all recognition in an effort to
fraudulently collect from Google and the public?

It makes me wish that someone would bring suit against
Oracle for THEIR use of other peoples APIs. It would
be rich to have Oracle have to argue one way in one
case, but completely differently in another case.

So, where or when will Boies behaviour ever catch up
with him?

[ Reply to This | # ]

what we should do to combat FLORACLE!
Authored by: frankieh on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 12:09 AM EDT
There has to be a thousand groklaw members with blogs and
websites and other online apps.

If groklaw started referring to Florian as "a blogger paid by
Microsoft and Oracle" and linked to a groklaw page detailing
the details of his employment with these companies and all of
us with blogs, websites and social apps linked to that page
with the same tagline, Florian Mueller, a blogger paid by
Microsoft and Oracle... We could make it so that people
couldn't Google him without learning that his opinions appear
to be fully bought and paid for. I imagine that Microsoft
would creatively edit their search results to stop that
showing up, but who cares? Smart people dont use bing unless
they have to anyway.

I really think we should do this, its only a matter of time
till someone starts hinting that PJ is secretly paid by
Google... We might as well point out that in Florian's case it
isn't really secret, it just isn't mentioned much by him.

[ Reply to This | # ]

cynical propaganda
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 01:38 AM EDT
I am afraid cynical propaganda is exactly what it is.
Groklaw stands out for basing its opinion on facts and using those clear, cold
facts to pierce the hot air balloons floated by those for whom facts get in the
way of making money.
It's the phenomenon called 'framing', wherein one side uses words laden with
connotations - preferably negative ones - which then becomes little packets of
information with which to steer the listener towards drawing the conclusions
beneficial to the speaker.
It is a dirty political trick and it works well in the court of public opinion,
where it's extreme version is called 'spin' or 'damage control'.
It is important for Oracle to project themselves in the right (artificial) light
to their peers, on the assumption that those same peers have little time to read
through dry court papers or fact-laden tomes to arrive at a balanced view of the
issue in question.
"Give me the short version", as they say in the movies.
Yes, it is cynical propaganda and it is deliberate deception. Just like

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, you are a shining jewel
Authored by: jbb on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 04:16 AM EDT
One of the reasons for this is the great integrity you have shown year in and year out. The Wikipedia says:
Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that integrity regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.
This matches my own internal definition. Unfortunately, integrity seems like a scarce resource nowadays which is one of the reasons why you are such a precious jewel. You don't fight fire with fire or lies with lies. You tell the truth, as you see it, despite the slings and arrows of outrageous slander and lies that reverberate around the Internet.

In a time of universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-- George Orwell

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Oracle Appellate Reply Brief - Correcting FOSSpatents. Yes. Again. ~ pj
Authored by: JonCB on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 05:10 AM EDT
While doing the HTML reformatting, i came across a real

" But Google does not mean that there is some standard-
setting organization that sets out voluntary disclosure
standards (there isn't)"

Yeah. There's ABSOLUTELY nothing like JCP (which is "the
mechanism for developing standard technical specifications
for Java technology.")... Oh...

Best part is that Judge Alsup's Ruling specifically mentions
the JCP as a standards process.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Giving the lie
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 06:06 AM EDT
What Oracle says:
Google twists the meaning of ordinary words to obfuscate their true import
What FossPatents says:
By contrast, it's pretty clear now where Oracle says the law draws the line: expressive software code, whether declaring or not, is protectable. Expression means creativity, which in turn requires choice -- choice on the part of who writes the original code, not the one deciding to copy some or all of it later.
What the dictionary says:

3: the communication (in speech or writing) of your beliefs or opinions; "expressions of good will"; "he helped me find verbal expression for my ideas"; "the idea was immediate but the verbalism took hours" [syn: expression, {verbal expression}, verbalism]
What the law says (17 USC § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general):
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
So you cannot copyright written or spoken expression that communicates your beliefs, opinions, ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries, regardless of the form in which they are described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

When FossPatents say that expressive software code is protectable, it is wrong, both legally and as a matter of the English language. Software is, by and large, an expression of the methods of operation of the computer in order to enact the ideas of the author. 'Expressive software' is a meaningless phrase. Expressive does not mean creative according to the dictionary, so it is, again, wrong in this assertion. 'His ideas were powerfully expressed in his writings' does not confirm copyrightable subject matter. Only if the writer uses expression which is an original work of authorship is his work protected by copyright law.

So, come on Oracle, which is the original work of authorship to be found in RangeCheck on which the law offers copyright protection? To give you a helping hand, lines with just ';' in them are not original. They are an essential constituent of many computing languages. Anything already forming part of the Java language is not an original work of authorship by the RangeCheck author. Any names, words or short phrases are not, by law, an original work of authorship receiving copyright protection. So, how many original lines of the RangeCheck program constitute the original work of authorship which you say cannot be 'de minimus' under copyright law and are worth beelions?

Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should a Computer LANGUAGE be copyrightable?
Authored by: roxyb on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 10:18 AM EDT

As normal languages, like English and Swedish, can't be copyrightable (to my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong), why should a computer language like Java or Python be allowed copyright?

I can understand an implementation of the same language (like python.exe or java.exe) being subject to copyright, as well as a program written in the language itself (like a Harry Potter novell or Oracle Financials), but not the structure and syntax of the same language (like verbs, adverbs, standard libraries or common idioms).

Otherwise I'll copyright the Swedish language and ask for compensation for the usage of English from the users of the same language, as it has Swedish loan-words (I'll disregard the reverse, to be in common with the Oracle position).

Isn't this the fundamental question that needs to be addressed, before going forward? It may be off-topic...

I'm Still Standing...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perjury in a legal brief?
Authored by: mvs_tomm on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 01:09 AM EDT
If I remember correctly, an attorney is an officer of the court. As such, an
attorney is considered to be under oath when submitting a brief. If that is the
case, couldn't an attorney be subject to prosecution for perjury if a brief is

Of course, an attorney is expected to try to interpret the law so as to benefit
the client. However, shouldn't misquoting the brief submitted by the opposition
be considered perjury?

Tom Marchant

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whither the trolls?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 04:20 AM EDT
Usually you can see at least a few anonymous trolls in the top level of the
comments after every article...yet they're strangely missing here.

Perhaps, as with trolls of the norse tradition, sunlight is lethal to them.


[ 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 )