|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
Please indicate the correction in the title.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts than the one we’re
in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections here please - Authored by: holdenSK on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- "you should b aware of this" -> "be aware" -nt- - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- Flex => FX (JavaFX) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:05 PM EDT
- "Update 3" of 4x missing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- yY --> Y - Authored by: julian on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:00 PM EDT
- Yes Oracle --> Yes Oracle - Authored by: julian on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- Bold Stuck after "Re-reCross of Dan Bornstein" - Authored by: pogson on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- Update 5 is not highlighted - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 11:42 PM EDT
- Many Google -> Many.[newline]Google - Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 04:56 AM EDT
- developong -> developing - Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:00 AM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
Surely they would have checked the paperwork matched the
claims?...
Is this another footgun?
I'd guess that the Judge might let it run anyway (if there's
any legal way that could happen), to avoid appeals.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
Thank you for your support, see http://ww
w.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php%3f
page=ComesBooking for
documents --- IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
O M G
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT
- Not know? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:05 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: jvillain on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: eachus on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: darrellb on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: jjs on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:20 AM EDT
- That's my take - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:49 AM EDT
- It substantially similar - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: Doghouse on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:40 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jvillain on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
Oracle now trying to get one patent back into case that was revived
by PTO. Says willing to drop claims on other patents to use this
one
Link
The time stamp is 7:40AM
as I am unsure how to link to a singe tweet.
If true it doesn't mesh with
what I understand of how trials work. But more importantly is speaks volumes as
to the value or validity of the remaining patents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT |
> Google: While you were developing Android, did you believe
> that you needed a license from Sun for the Java APIs?
>
> Oracle: Objection, foundation.
>
> Judge: He can say what he understood back then, as a lay opinion.
So why weren't the others on previous days allowed to say what they
understood then, as a "lay opinion"?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lay Opinion - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:12 PM EDT
- Lay Opinion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- Lay Opinion - Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- Lay Opinion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Lay Opinion - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:49 PM EDT
- Lay Opinion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- Rule 50 - Authored by: eachus on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT
- Clicky Rule 50 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT
|
Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
I just posted this in the last thread, but I wanted to repost it, because
it's such an obvious analogy that it barely counts as an analogy at all. It's
almost an obvious technical definition.
I'm surprised that
nobody has come up with this before. The most obvious analogy for an API is a
computer language! Because that's basically what an API is--and
extension to an existing language. The API adds new words to the
language. When people say an API is "just words", that's exactly
right! It adds new vocabulary to the language.
When you write a
useful library, you need to make it accessible to the people who are writing
programs in a given language, so you create an interface between the
language and the code in your library. This makes your library essentially
become part of the language--programmers can reference it just like they can
reference the built-in parts of the language, to write
their
programs.
The more I think about it, the more this seems like a
perfect analogy. You can write a library in one language (like, say, C) and
provide APIs for several (say, C, Python, Perl, even Java if you want to
sacrifice the
portability factor). The library remains the same in all
cases--all the API does is add the library to the language! And
someone can come along and write a similar library using only their own code,
and use your API (your vocabulary) to add their library instead, just as they
can re-implement the basic underlying language(s).
I'd love to hear one
of Google's lawyers ask the expert: "what is the difference between a language
and an API?" We all know that languages aren't copyrightable--although
implementations are. Why is it different for extensions--added vocabulary--for
the language?
--- Do not meddle in the affairs of
Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- domain specific language? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- An INCREDIBLY obvious analogy for APIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- Pretty good - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- APIs as language extension - Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- An INCREDIBLY obvious analogy for APIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- An INCREDIBLY obvious analogy for APIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- Great analogy, but... - Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:33 AM EDT
- An INCREDIBLY obvious analogy for APIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:52 AM EDT
- Here's an even simpler one - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:25 AM EDT
- Do have a look at PJ's link in the story to the 'Lawyer's API' - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:59 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
Cannot was for the reply to Google's Rule 50 Motion, where BSF says it
was just a scrivener's error on the copyright registration form.
om1er, not logged in[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
From a trial exhibit - November 2006 presentation outlining a Google phone.
Fact: Linux fragmentation threatens market acceptance. Tools and new app
frameworks are biggest hurdles. 6M Java developers worldwide. Tools and
documentation exist to support app development without the need to create a
large developer services organization. There exist many legacy Java
applications. The wireless industry has adopted Java, and the carriers require
its support.
Strategy: Leverage Java for its existing base of developers. Build a useful app
framework (not J2ME). Support J2ME apps in compatibility mode. Provide an
opTMobileized JVM (Dalvik).
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57421233-94/googles-original-phone-surfaces-in-
court/
Google's intention was to use Java all along because they did not have a
developer base. They couldn't bring Android to market without Java.
I think we can drop the pretense that Google is any white knight. Google's a
large corporation like Oracle out to make money. Period. Google couldn't secure
a proper license from Sun so they went the backdoor route.
It will basically come down to: Did Google violate any agreement, any IP that
Oracle owns? If there is some Java IP that is not GPL'ed then Google loses. If
not, Google wins.
But let it be clear, Google used Java to further its own ends.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Google Needed Java - Authored by: jvillain on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Google Needed Java - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Pretense? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- Google Needed Java - Authored by: scav on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- No, Google wanted Java - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- get back under thy bridge - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT
- Choosing Java as a platform - Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:08 PM EDT
- Oracle is trying to change the rules - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT
- Google Needed Java - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
Oracle: When Mr. Schwartz [Sun CEO] did his blog, he didn't
have the SDK?
Andy Rubin: No, the SDK came out a few days
later.
The implication Oracle is driving at here and in later
questions is that had Sun but known that Android was using Java APIs then they
never would have offered praise and congratulations. Instead, they would have
been launching lawsuits.
What a fine example of BS&F-speak! Obviously
Schwartz knew Android used the Java language. That's why he said Android would
act like booster rockets on Java. Oracle is suggesting that Schwartz was
pleased only because he assumed Android had invented their own incompatible APIs
which would have fractured the Java community and forced many developers to
choose to either program in Sun-Java or Android-Java but not both. This is the
same Oracle that is complaining about being harmed by
fragmentation!
Oracle is trying to twist the plain and obvious truth into
a pretzel. Schwartz was happy with Android and thought it would benefit the
Java community precisely because he assumed it used the same (or at least
very similar) core APIs. If they didn't use the same APIs then it would have
created a huge mess that damaged both Android and Java.
Yet here we have
Oracle trying to spin a tale that is the exact opposite of the obvious (to
programmers) truth. They are implying that Schwartz was happy because he
assumed Android-Java was such a different language from Sun-Java (due to
completely different core APIs) that once someone started programming with one
variant they would have a very hard time switching to the other.
The
bottom line is Google did the right thing by making their version of Java
compatible with Sun's version. This required them to use the same or very
similar core APIs. Sun was delighted that Google did the right thing. Now in
order to try to make a quick buck, Oracle makes up the idea that APIs can be
copyrighted and then tries to rewrite history by implying that Sun was only
pleased with Android because they had assumed it had fractured the Java language
to the core (core APIs that is).
It is shameful that our society richly
rewards people for cooking up lies like this. These lies do nothing to benefit
society as a whole. Their only purpose is to enrich a few people undeservedly
at the expense of everyone else.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves
that there are more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that we think
is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
Bouncy castle was an JCE provider which implements most of the javax.security
package interfaces which provide a set of cryptographic algorithms for xmlsec,
DES, AES, et alia. These were used in place of the com.sun.security
implementation which couldn't be exported and thus was separate from the
J2SE/J2EE distributions.
It's not a complete set of java APIs, just a cleanroom (aussie) implementation
of the security API's.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
Java SE contains a complete implementation of the DOM API.
That API is owned by the W3C. The class, methods, SSO etc. is
identical to the spec (it has to be, of course)
It also contains an implementation of Corba. The class and
method names are taken directly from the spec.
Why on earth has Google not brought this up?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
Oracle has got themselves into a pickle, and they didn't have much of a choice
about it.
They started out suing over 51 APIs. Then they had to trim
it down to 37, because they didn't write or own 14 of them. That means
that when they sent in the copyright registration, they knew that they
didn't have the copyright over all the APIs. But, they needed the copyright for
the trial, so they (BSF probably) filed the copyrights the only way they could,
as a collection. Then they hoped nobody would notice.
They could
not individually copyright the API specifications. There isn't enough to
them to get a valid copyright from the copyright office (not to mention that
other languages use substantially similar or the same specs). So, the lawyers,
being well versed as they are in law, went for what they knew they could get
away with without getting in hot water for falsifying
applications.
Unfortunately for them, Google caught on (I kind of
suspect they caught on earlier, and were waiting for Google to paint themselves
into a corner and rest their case, so they couldn't wriggle out like slimy
little salamanders).
--- MDT [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hedronist on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
Oracle: Did you know that Apache had field of use restrictions on
it?
Andy Rubin: No, I did not.
IANAL, but I think that
Boies just came as close to lying as he could and get away with it. It struck me
as odd that he would have even said that, since the only reason Apache Harmony
was not verified with the JCK was because Apache wouldn't sign a license with
a Field of Use restriction in it. And they said that clearly and repeatedly.
Ref. Open Letter to
Sun Microsystems
I was shocked that Google didn't scream
Objection! 1 second after he had asked this question. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darrellb on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
Judge: Reserving on the issue of whether SSO is a copyrightable
issue. That way, it would be easy for the court of appeals to reverse without a
new trial. Now it makes sense why the Court moves forward with
the jury under an assumption that SSO is copyrightable. There will be evidence
for infringement in the event that, after appeals, SSO is copyrightable. And if
SSO is ncopyrightable, the Court will have evidence that it will not need to use
for anything, but won't be lacking evidence it needs. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
Judge: Beginning to hear a defense item, a way to escape the
admission of the SSO in the case, that the API doesn't exist. That's what I
heard this last witness to say. I drafted this special verdict form before I
heard that. I wish you could meet and confer to come up with a definition of an
API. It has become quite clear what has happened here: the names and the
hierachical organization is the same. The compiled code is
different.
Good, I believe he understands this now. I'm somewhat
worried about the SSO thing, but maybe the funny business with the copyright
registrations will scuttle that, anyhow. The law here looks pretty thorny and
this seems more likely to turn on random details specific to this case than
copyright law itself, but who knows?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
PJ has asked previously for enlightening analogies on what an API does in Java.
Here is my attempt, inspired by the following quote from
Rubin:
If the app needs a function from the core libraries, the
program will call into the core library, and the core library will do its
job.
It's in the form of a little science-fiction fairy
tale.
Once upon a time, a company called Sun created a herd of little robots
for menial tasks around the house. When you wanted one of them to appear in your
home, you only had to consult a directory quite similar to what we know today as
'yellow pages'. If you required a plumber robot to repair your kitchen sink, you
just dialed 'p-l-u-m-b-e-r.re-p-a-i-r.k-i-t-c-h-e-n-s-i-n-k' on your phone. The
robot helper appeared and repaired your kitchen sink.
Another company,
Google, believed that it could build such robots, too. It did not want to steal
the work from Sun. So it hired people who weren't in the robot constructing
business and paid them to construct robots on their own in their own 'clean
room'.
But of course, people had to know which robot to call in order to
get the job done. So Google published its own directory. This directory had to
follow the expectations of clients using Sun robots before. So it seemed to make
sense to structure the directory the same way Sun did before. After all, a
plumber robot is a plumber robot. And it makes sense to call
'repair.kitchensink' by that very name.
Sun welcomed Google robots,
because by then it had decided that the construction plans for its own robots
should be open to the public in order to enhance the technology. Someday robots
would be so ubiquitous that Sun would find a way to actually make money of
them.
But these dreams did not come true. Sun was bought by Oracle for
an amount of money not to be disclosed in a court of law. In due course, Oracle
had a closer look at the Google robot directory. And it saw that in the Google
robot directory, 37 'core robots' were listed in the same 'structure, sequence,
and organisation'. They even had the same dial-up numbers. Google would have
been required under the law to change the names of the robots
('pipe-and-water-technicians' rather than 'plumbers').
But this was not
enough. What the robots did, was suspisciously similar to the abilities of the
Oracle robots, too. They stole the idea that robots could be plumbers. But since
stealing ideas is not forbidden in the future, Oracle sued Google for putting
their robot under the heading 'plumber.repair.kitchensink'. Google rightfully
should have added or left out some robot capabilities. So the robot command
should either have been 'plumber.disconnect.kitchensink' or
'plumber.repair.kitchensink.and.toilet'.
You may have noted that the
case is before the court now... ;) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
Oracle's lawyer is using improperly formed questions to condition judge and jury
to assume and believe facts not in evidence.
Any fifth-grade bully knows that it is easy to construct questions that damn the
questioned no matter how they answer a question. These questions are the basis
for things like push-polling and other abuses of information purpitrated on
people like judges and juries. If, however, you have ever been subjected to this
kind of bullying you will forever be aware when the technique is in use.
Oracle is using this technique on Andy Rubin. It is frustrating him, though he
may not understand why. It is also conditioning the court to change its stance
and alter is rulings by presuming validity of certain Oracle positions.
First the sensitizing example. In deference to the forumn rules I will do a
little word substitution: We all know an F-word that references homosexuality,
and how it is used on the playground. I will substitute "(blank)"
Shouted across a playground: "Hey Rob, are you a (blank) in a cage?"
Me: "NO!"
Kids begin chanting: "(blank) on the loose! (blank) on the loose!"
So the thing is, such questions posed as yes or no (or in court "i don't
know") answer domains carry a weight of information that is unproved or
false. Asking the question is damning for all "allowed" answers.
Oracle Examples:
Did anyone tell you that Sun had put field of use restrictions on the J2SE
against mobile devices? (This is immaterial as AR's "being told" of
restrictions to a body of material they -aren't- -using- is not part of the
case. The presumed weight is that Sun is allowed to put restrictions on things
and that those things have bearing. This is a minor example to wet the pallet.)
Did you know that Apache had field of use restrictions on it? (Apache has no
such restrictions. All answers of "yes", "no", or "i
don't know" are damning. "Yes", though incorrect, says AR is a
bad actor. "No" and "i don't know" both call AR
incompetently unaware and imply the same silent question "why didn't you
know?". The correct answer is "I know that is has no such restrictions
and never has had such".)
While you were developing Android, you didn't have any authorization from Sun to
do what you were doing? (AR needed no authorization from Sun to do his job. He
needed authorization from Google, e.g. his employer. The entire case is the
question of whether Google needed authorization. The formation of the question
"affirms by silence" that said authorization was necessary.
Apache makes some or all of the Java class libraries available? (False, sort of.
Apache makes Harmony classes available. Those classes conform to the Java API.
There is an implication of ownership and trespass in the formation of the
question. The Harmony classes are classes from the java library spec, but they
are not Java class libraries.)
You knew that Apache was precluded from being used on mobile devices, right?
(There is no such preclusion, this is why Apache never went after the TCK.
Again, an answer of yes would tar with the brush of deliberate imporpriety and
both "no" and "i don't know" tar with willful ignorance.)
Thing is, this is a typical Biose (spelling?) behavior going back to SCO et al.
It's a poor-mans Perry Mason gambit. It is super common in "political
debate" as well.
Note that the damning question formation relies on the "initial
belief" mechanisim as described at the following link: (link through to the
formal study for the full citation, but the blog version is easier to take
informally.)
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/09/why-you-cant-help-believing-everything-you-read
.php
This is not the same thing as asking a "leading" question. This is
much more sinister when done this systematically. Looking back at B.'s other
questions here and in SCO its actually very much his primary mode. I think it's
his "one trick" that we have grown so used to, but not before given
name to.
Oracle is push-polling the court, with some success it seems. Hopefully Google
can undo some of the damage in its case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lwoggardner on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
Judge: The name declaration, what do you call that?
Dan
Bornstein: An implementation of the API.
Is this the
crux of the "API is not copyrightable" argument?
ie that The API is an abstract
concept, only made concrete
by the
declarations which appear in source code,
the bytecode and
the specifications/documentation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SLi on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
I'm not sure I follow this part of the notes (I'm not even
sure where he's
switching between different issues, so I'll quote
a larger part). Whose theory
is out of the window? Is "creative
writing" something special in this context
(i.e. apart from the
Wikipedia definition) I should recognize to understand
this
comment? How does cleanroom relate to this?
Judge:
Reserving on the issue of whether SSO is a
copyrightable issue. That way, it
would be easy for the court of
appeals to reverse without a new
trial.
Judge: I do not have in there that the implementation
(compiled
code)
Judge: Classic case of an attempt to copyright an idea.
Judge:
Cleanroom is like creative writing. That theory is out
the window. That's my
judgement.
Judge: There is a trying to have it both ways character to the
plaintiff's case:
1) all 37 put together
2) all 37, considered
individually
On Google's side, if SSO is copyrightable, which this jury
will be told is the fact, there is no way for you to argue that
it's de
minimis. There should be a rule 50 entry by Oracle to
that fact.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT |
I just accidentally made a point that I thought needed to be brought out for
separate discussion.
Apache Harmony -does- -not- make the Java Library Classes available.
Harmony makes the Harmony Class Libraries available. Those Harmony classes
deliberately conform to the Java classes by implementing the sections called
"java.lang" et al.
The way the questions are being asked and allowed gives undue credit and
credence to Oracle's position by making it seem like Harmony is a trespass that
it is not.
Harmony doesn't let you into Sun's house, It lets you into Apache's house. It is
true that the houses are deliberately similar, that they are hopefully congruent
in layout and functionality, but they persist in being their own properties.
The API isn't the "blueprint" for that house, as such blueprints would
contain materials used and such. The API is the "walking tour"
information. It's the "on the left you will find the master bedroom"
and "off the kitchen is a porch" information. The houses themselves
have different materials and dimensions and may differ in all sorts of detail.
Every time a witness says that Harmony "gives access to" or
"provides" the Java Library Classes it is a disservice to the truth.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:27 PM EDT |
3rd patent
claim
rejected - Ars Technica
"The reversal came a few
days too late, for the trial had
already started and the dismissals with
prejudice had already become
effective," Alsup wrote. "Oracle’s argument that
the patent ‘trial’ has
not yet started is wrong. The was and is one trial with
three phases.
The trial started on April 16. This is not only the plain meaning
of the
term but any other interpretation would inject great prejudice given
that the parties have relied on the issues to be tried and that reliance
should not be turned on its head in mid-trial. Oracle will be required
to
stand by its word and live with the dismissal with prejudice."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
I am not a lawyer, but I worked for nearly 15 years for a
501(c)(3) not-for-profit that depends on more than a little
of its revenue on publishing new compilations of works it
has already published. At a particularly key juncture, we
were about to publish in CD form TIFF renderings of over
seven decades of the organization's monthly membership
journal and, going forward, publish current and future
issues of that journal in interactive e-book form. It was
important to know exactly what we could and could not
copyright -- that is, exactly what did and did not happen
when we published _and copyrighted_ our compilations.
To get at the issues involved, imagine compiling and
publishing a collection _solely of works for which copyright
has expired._ Once a work falls out of copyright, it's in
the public domain and can't be pulled back in. So what are
you protecting when you release a copyrighted collection, a
compilation, of such works? Because all the components of
the collection have fallen into the public domain,
copyrighting the collection can protect only _new_
intellectual property: the organization, structure, and
sequence _of the compilation_, plus any new front and back
matter, including cover graphics. The copyright status of
the component reprinted works is unchanged because it cannot
be changed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
Package java.lang
Provides classes that are fundamental to
the design of
the Java programming language.
The page linked
to details the specification for the
classes, interfaces, and exceptions. To
me, the
above is saying the specification is part of the language,
not some
vague, separate thing called an "SSO". In other
words, if you have a right to
use the language, it follows
that you have a right to use the specifications.
...and if
you have a right to use the specifications, then you have a
right to
employ them to make your own implementations.
Oracle is full of it! What does
it look like to you? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rubberman on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
PJ, this is the best reading I've had in a long time! Thanks
so much for all the work in bringing the trial to life for
those of us "in the trenches".
Rubberman
Senior Systems/Software Engineer
For A Really Big Cell Phone Manufacturer
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mexaly on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
Now that scratches an itch that I've had for a long, long time.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
Years before my birth there was a bunch of cases involving the S.A.E. (Society
of Automotive Engineers) and the auto makers and whomever else. [not a lawyer,
don't know the precedent.]
It was established that I have the right to replace the bits of my car with
parts made by others.
This was ruled right and just even though the manufacturers had come up with all
sorts of ways to try to make that impossible. Special tools with odd patents.
Screw drivers that nobody else was allowed to make or own without paying a
danegeld. etc.
So here we have Sun ne Oracle saying that When Apache made a drop in replacement
for some parts inside of the Java runtime they did something impermissible. If
these things were called "java.carburetor",
"java.transmission", or "java.breaks" and were being sold at
Autozone instead of given away at Google, how obvious do you think the
"correct and just" outcome would be.
Oracle's "Google has no right to put the oil filter on the engine block,
they could have put it in the turnk" argument is just plain stupid.
The interfaces, once well established, are not smart to change. Nobody is going
to expect the dipstick to be under the gas cap.
Now java as a language is about as different from C++, as My Toyota is from my
Ford.
The car makers tried to patent, obscure, and encumber the various interfaces on
their products. They rightly failed. Among other things it was pretty obvious,
when you took off a timing belt, what the "timing belt interface" was
and how to make a timing belt of your very own.
So Oracle has pointed at a windshield glass, a fan belt, a radiator cap and a
few other things that every car has and said nobody else has a right to make
these things for -OUR- car because we said so. Okay, we didn't mention it at the
time but we were thinking it real hard now that we look back on it. And we said
so because we didn't want the market in parts for our car to
"fragment".
Duh.
But see, java.lang.math or whatever is just C's "math.h" just like
Toyota's radiator cap is just a slightly resized version of every other (modern)
radiator cap on the planet.
If computer stuff is "patentable as a machine" then these are just the
interchangeable parts of that machine and we -already- have precedent that says
that no matter what games you play with the documentation and the tooling you
are -not- allowed to (successfully) sue people for making interchangeable parts
just to keep them out of your market.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
I cannot say this often enough. This is a wonderful reporting job.
Try not to make the court reporter feel inadequate.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT |
Curious about Bouncy Castle (mentioned by both Andy Rubin and Dan Bornstein in
their testimony) and browsing around, I found this documentation from Sun about
JDK 1.4. To provide some context, the article is about use of the encryption
algorithm AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) in the JDK 1.4. In versions before
JDK 1.4 encryption was done using JCE (Java Cryptography Extension), a separate
class library with its own API, which did not contain an implementation of AES.
The JCE was in packages under javax.crypto, which includes three of the 37
packages in Oracle's claims.
As of JDK 1.4, the JCE packages and classes
were included with the JDK. The API remained the same, but became part of the
set of APIs that were shipped with the JDK. The API was unchanged, still in the
javax.crypto.* packages. (Note that I am using the term "API" correctly. I am
not saying that the class library did not change. I am saying that the API,
which means how the packages, classes, and methods are named and used, did not
change). Implementations of AES were added to go with the other JCE classes.
This article is about using AES in various Java technologies, including use in
JDK 1.4.
Using AES with Java Technology
That is on the java.sun.com web site
which I have trouble accessing sometimes, especially from outside the US. Here
is the page as archived on webcite.org unless Oracle takes action to have it
removed.
Using AES with Java
Technology
A quote from that page:
The AES standard has
been incorporated into several Java technology offerings. Beginning with the
Java 2 SDK, Standard Edition (J2SE) v 1.4.0, the Java Cryptography Extension
(JCE) was integrated with the SDK and the JRE. Since then, it has no longer been
necessary to install the JCE optional package, since support for strong
cryptography is now available as part of J2SE. JCE has a provider architecture
that enables different providers to be plugged in under a common
framework.
Several providers have supported AES in their own clean-room
implementations of JCE, or under the existing framework. In Java 2 Platform,
Standard Edition v 1.4.2, which is currently under beta, the Sun Provider,
referred to as SunJCE, supports AES. Also, the Java Secure Socket Extension
(JSSE) supports AES via JCE.
Bouncy Castle is one of the "several
providers" referred to in that quote. Bouncy Castle is an Open Source clean-room
implementation of the JCE begun in 2000, and provides a free implementation of
AES. I don't find the incorporated JCE in the JDK 1.4 sources that I can get
now, but the AES in OpenJDK 6 comes from another, older, clean-room open source
implementation of the JCE called Cryptix, which was released under a BSD
license.
The significance of the above quote is that it is Sun in 2003
writing positively about people providing clean-room implementations of the JCE
API, now one of the API components of the Java Class Libraries, copying the SSO
of 3 of the 37 packages-in-suit.
I have not yet looked at the source code in
Android in the javax.crypto.* packages to see which files were copied from
Bouncy Castle. I would expect it to be most of them. Why should Google bother to
duplicate the effort of the excellent work that Bouncy Castle already did to
implement the classes in those packages? Once again, just like with Apache
Harmony, there is Google accused of copying the SSO of the API when what they
did was copy code that is under an Apache License, code that Sun knew about and
did nothing to stop.
Google's case is even stronger with Bouncy Castle than
with the packages that were copied from APache Harmony. There was no issue
regarding TCK for Bouncy Castle, or field of use restrictions. Sun knew about
"several providers" with "their own clean-room implementations of JCE". In fact
they even used one of them, cryptix, when they needed to get an AES class to use
in the JDK's version of JCE. They knew about them and they wrote about them and
did not sue over their use of the SSO of JCE.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lwoggardner on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:25 AM EDT |
Dan Bornstein: Method or class? Let's talk abut
java.lang.math.max
Dan Bornstein: The java.lang.math would have to be
there.
Dan Bornstein: it's not just a matter of comfort… lots of
pre-written source code that we'd like to be able to run on
Android.
ie Google's argument is that they wanted other
people to be
able to use their own existing Java code on Android and to
do so
android needed to provide implementations compatible
with, and hence almost
identical too, the java.* and javax.*
APIs
A question that has been
puzzling me is whether this is an
argument for fair use, or does it go to the
issue of
copyrightability. ie is this argument for the jury or the
judge?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:32 AM EDT |
You let me bang on for over a year thinking that collection and compilation were
synonymous in the eyes of the law.
Let me rephrase my point. The Java
registrations were for a collection in the same way that the RedHat and Ubuntu
registrations were for a collection. You are not permitted, under the copyright
law for registered collections, to substantially copy the whole
collection without a licence.
Any individual item within the
collection is only protected by the copyright of the individual item. You can
protect the creative expression fixated in the medium of that single item
if you own the copyright of that single item.
The Java SE V5 API
Specification as it is shown to us, the community and to this very court is not
a single document.
Oracle showed a comparison between two web pages,
one purporting to be a single html document (from a whole slew of individual
html documents with their own individual copyright marking and not protected as
a group by the Java SE V5 registration of a collection) from the series of
documents that Oracle say is not to be considered as a compilation and is
something to do with the Java API Specification. The other html document was a
similar one from the Android site. We don't have to worry about that one. It is
available under the Apache licence.
The only rights that Oracle have to
the html document they displayed in court is for the SSO and other creative
expression fixated into that single document. Any abstract ideas within that
document that relate to other ideas in another document of which they own the
copyright is not protected.
The 37 packages are not a single document.
They are not a whole work. In fact, an analysis (
What's in a name? whats in an SSO? , towards the end) from a couple of
stories back showed that the 37 packages cannot be seen as a single
sub-organisation from within the 160+. They look like a pile of bits of branches
copied from a tree.
The Java API Specification is not a single
document like a book. Oracle say it is not a compilation. Therefore the 160+
packages are not a whole work. The Java SE5 API Specification is not registered
as a collection at the USPTO. Any SSO of a library of documents is unprotectable
by copyright law. Only if that library collection copyright is registered as a
whole work might some modest protection be possible. Possibly.
You
cannot post a copyright warning at the entrance to a library saying that access
to the Science Section is permitted, with the licence restrictions
that,
1) You are not permitted to make an atomic bomb using information
drawn from a selection of the books in the section.
2) You are not
permitted to publish a list of the tomes giving the title, the author, the ISBN,
the shelf, the row and the section in which the tome is to be found.
You cannot enforce those usage and SSO licence conditions anywhere in
the world, using copyright law.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: indyandy on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:20 AM EDT |
We should be grateful that when the Java Apis were being defined Unicode was not
mature.
Imagine if all the methods were like
this:
java™.lang.Math.max(a,b)
;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:00 AM EDT |
Isen't this all just wonderful for Oracle?
They have 2 Patents left to go on, still having to prove
infringment. Google have lots of options to deal with that,
they may even already have a new version of their software
in the wings that works around those patents, who can know?
Oracles copyright claims are very dodgy, not sure yet what:
"Section 103b, compilation copyright only covers the
collection as a whole, only if it comes from the same
author." ... is going to mean for Oracle. But its getting
very suspenseful, watching this. Possibly Oracle will little
more than 2 patents left to argue about and/or a lot more
proving of copyright ownership to do.
At any rate the SSO issue would likely go to appeal, the
judge has indicated this. I doubt the SSO argument has much
of a chance, because it certainly applies more to a novel or
a movie then to an API specification. I think Oracle got the
subject matter definately wrong on that argument.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT |
IMO Google will be prejeduced, maybe severly prejeduced, if
he tells the Jury that SSO is copyrightable, when in fact he
has NOT ruled on this and it is far from certain if this is
really so.
If he told the jury that SSO is NOT copyrightable Oracle
would be screaming bloody prejeduce at the top of their
lungs for sure.
To be correct, shouldn't he just tell the jury the truth?
If I were a member of that Jury I would want him to be
straight with me, if I found out later that he told me
something that was not true, I think I would be very
irritated, and rightfully so. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|