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
I'd like to hear more about that. | 396 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I'd like to hear more about that.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT
No, just another massive distraction to stop you thinking about the SSO in the specification that was copied to Googles website. Do you think this is one is the queen of hearts?

Does this idea of an "SSO" have any historical precedent? I've never heard of it before this case, and it seems clearly designed to dance around the facts that the cleanroom implementation doesn't infringe copyright (in any meaningful way - we'll see the worth of those 9 lines soon enough), and the names and signatures of the methods are non copyrightable.

What's left when you ignore them? Some mystical "SSO" which doesn't really mean anything. A tree structure surely can't be copyrightable when the items contained within it aren't protectable, and I'm pretty sure someone invented alphabetical organisation and tree structures before Oracle.

Assuming the SSO is a copyrightable item, can we identify the text that was "copied to Googles website"?

Oracle clearly want money and recognition, and are throwing anything they can at the wall to hope that something sticks. I'm pretty sure they don't believe any of this rubbish, but feel generally wronged, and want to rectify the "injustice" of someone else managing to use the free parts of their work to make money in ways that they have categorically failed to do themselves.

I'm certain that Oracle wish that there were an API license, but the concept doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure what you mean about the queen of hearts.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What about the dozens of Java books published
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT
Do they infringe on this SSO?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )