|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
..and you haven't already duplicated the nine lines in question. You need to go
back to school.
Judge Alsup has already asked the question "this is elementary level stuff
isn't it? Even I know that.
(the exact quote may differ).
Yes, but they admit they copied it, so now all of Android is derivative, we
swear that's what the law says, so help me <deity/>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
From the information to jury on Day 3,
Judge Alsup: What is being challenged ( and the lawyers will correct me if I am
wrong ):
1) 37 API’s
2) 2 files in the 37 API’s that contain 9 lines of range-check code that is
symbol-by-symbol copying
3) 2 files where comments are identical [ explains comment usage in general in
source code; no distinction yet as to whether these a plain comments or
documentation comments. ]
4) declarations in the 37 API’s, which are symbol-for-symbol identical
5) SSO - the 37 API’s do not have the same source code [ mostly ], but they
have an identical SSO.
6) Documentation “detailed booklet, written in plain English”.
7) Beyond the 37 API’s, there are 8 additional files that Oracle claims are
word-for-word copies.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|