|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
IMHO, I would not be so quick to challenge the motives of the judge.
I would expect that he is starting to create an image in his mind on why a clean
room is required. He also has to phrase his questions so as to not sound bias or
leading.
Once he understands the requirement of a clean room development environment, and
I am sure that he is close to being there, then he will understand why Google
and other companies use that process.
I think that he has a good handle of where everything is going and he may have
already taken a position and now is just dotting the I's and crossing the T's to
make a solid ruling.
I like this judge and his approach. No nonsense, directive and does not leave
anything on the table that may be misunderstood.
CC :>) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
We are currently in Oracle's time to make their case. Mostly, Google is running
interference, pulling them up on the odd point to break their flow, to keep the
jury aware of the stunts being pulled.
Next up, Google will state their case. Expect to see it reduced to the threads
it is. Google will clearly show how, why and where an API is unprotected, and
just how minimus their de is, and how their clean their room was. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
The judge is presumed not to be confused by the law (for long).
The jury are presumed to be totally confused by the law (except for the judges
instructions).
---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
Sometimes judges ask questions they know the answer just to see how *you* would
answer.
Once I have seen some posters here saying "beware of judges asking stupid
questions. Usually it is a trap."
We will need the full report to have an idea of what this is about.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: neutro511 on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
I certainly hope that's the case. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mirrorslap on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
Judge Alsup has made it clear (to me, anyway) that he needs to understand and
the jury needs to understand what an API is, in order to reach a fair ruling.
Oracle has presented what *they* say an API is, which leave's everyone
scratching their heads, saying, "wha...???" or worse. Now that Google
has a
chance to present their case, they are telling Judge Alsup *and* the jury what
an
API is... and what Google has said and is saying seems reasonable and
understandable.
So no, Judge Alsup has not drunk the "Oracle API Kool-Aid". He is
doing his best
to get at the truth of the matter (and get the jury there, too) to ensure a fair
trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Thank you! - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 11:03 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:07 AM EDT |
It really seems to me that the Oracle team is just making stuff up.
Saying you need a license to do a clean room implementation is identical to
saying APIs can be protected by copyright.
The judge was asking
why, if APIs aren't protected by copyright, should Google have deemed it
necessary to perform a clean room analysis of those APIs? There was no
suggestion of any need for "a license to do a clean room implementation"; and
even if there were then that suggestion should be ascribed to Judge Alsup, not
Oracle.
First Oracle said the legal landscape has changed since
1996 and even though APIs could not be copyrighted back then, now they can. I've
seen no evidence to back up this extraordinary claim.
You seem to
be mischaracterizing what Oracle said, or perhaps you care to cite some other
statement than, "BUT IN THAT 15 YEARS LOTUS V. BORLAND HASN'T SWEPT THE
JUDICIAL LANDSCAPE. COURTS OF APPEALS HAVEN'T ADOPTED IT. DISTRICT COURTS
HAVEN'T ADOPTED IT. THERE HAS BEEN NO DECISION IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT, IN
PARTICULAR, THAT ADOPTS THE KEY LOGIC MOVE THAT THE FIRST CIRCUIT MADE IN LOTUS
V. BORLAND, ..." -- which is the closest thing I can find in the record to
your paraphrase.
A few days later in a tacit admission that their
extraordinary claims were fibs, they admitted to the judge that they were
actually asking him to make "new law".
The "new law" -- scary
quotes and all -- was PJ's rephrasing of what Oracle actually stated, i.e.,
"The parties agree no case addresses directly whether the Copyright
Act protects a computer programming language."
It is misguided to
characterize this statement as Oracle asking the judge to "make new law". The
law was "made" by Congress back in 1978; the judge is being asked to adjudicate
it. Granted case law is recognized in the U.S., but it is borderline
disingenuous to suggest that one side in a court case -- to any degree more than
other -- is asking that "new law" be made when they seek an interpretation of
existing statutes.
Now Oracle is at it again trying to sneak their
unsupported claim through the back door by saying you need a license to do a
clean room implementation.
Again, Oracle has not suggested this; in
fact, I don't recall Oracle ever suggesting that Google's approach qualified as
a "clean room implementation" (and Judge Alsup has made some queries which
suggest his own uncertainty of this).
It is rather disappointing to
see this continual mischaracterization of the issues at stake and statements
being wrongly paraphrased that is occurring during Groklaw's discussion of this
case. One would have hoped that even if the coverage were not entirely
objective, at least the case would be accurately portrayed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|