|
Authored by: N_au on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:18 AM EDT |
Please indicate the correction in the title. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: N_au on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:19 AM EDT |
please make links clickable [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: N_au on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
Judge Alsups decision on the patent was a serious "Muhahahaha" moment
for Google :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
Thank you for your support, see http://ww
w.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.p
hp?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: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
This is pretty serious for Oracle by the look of it.
Is there any possibility the Judge could / would hold
judgement on this to allow the jury to return a verdict, and
then pull this out if necessary? Or is this an issue that has
to be resolved straight away?
I'd like to see a jury verdict in Google's favour *and* a
legal ruling on the subject to send the correct message to
the industry, but I guess that can't really happen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
OK, I have to ask; since when is Florin a patent expert? Seems the only
expertise he has is selling himself out then disguising himself as
"objective".
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
Took a stab at describing it as a hobbyist programmer, and couldn't get it out
of my thoughts last night, so here it is:
A single API element is like a single DARPA challenge. There is a goal which
must be met. There are rules of what can be used and rules about what must come
out. The challenge does nothing and in fact that is the point...to entice other
people to come up with their own version of a solution.
Source Code are those solutions, or entries to the challenge. Each one is a
completely different creative take on a way to achieve the required outcome.
"The API" as being discussed here, is just a large list of challenges.
Moreover, it's like DARPA has a rule that in order to simplify their
bookkeeping, every entry must exactly reference the title of the challenge in
order to be accepted as an entry. Any submission which does not, is simply
ignored.
The absurdity of the case is that it is like DARPA suing Burt Rutan and
demanding a share in all the profits of his tourist space program...why?
Because his entry submission had a line that exactly referenced their challenge
title, making Burt guilty (in their alternate reality) of IP theft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- an API - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:16 AM EDT
- Seems correct to me - Authored by: marcosdumay on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:22 AM EDT
- an API is a conceptual contract - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- an API - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
- an API - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT
- an API - Authored by: tinkerghost on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- an API - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 07:15 PM EDT
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
Google's motion hinges on testimony that Oracle has presented in court, right?
I just want to make sure I understand correctly. Google could not have filed
this in advance because a base point is from these trial proceedings.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
PJ has often opined that you never see "Your honour, I'd like to submit
this piece of evidence that completely destroys my opponent's case..."
moments that are the staple of television and Hollywood courtrooms.
But this copyright registration issue sure feels like one of those. :)
-- grnbrg.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
In its first example, Oracle focused on the descriptions in
the
J2SE and Android specifications for the
CipherInputStream class in the
javax.crypto package. Counsel
for Oracle asked Bob Lee to compare the following
portions
of the descriptions of CipherInputStream in the J2SE 5.0 and
Android
specifications:
java:
A CipherInputStream is
composed of an
InputStream and a Cipher so that read()
methods return data that
are read in from the
underlying InputStream but have been
additionally processed
by the Cipher. The
Cipher must be fully initialized before being
used by a
CipherInputStream.
Android:
This class wraps an
InputStream and a cipher
so that read() methods return data that are read
from
the underlying InputStream and
processed by the cipher.
The cipher must be
initialized for the requested
operation before being used by
a
CipherInputStream.
Did they seriously actually ask if those two
were the same?
Is that the best argument they gave? No better examples?
Admittedly a few of the words are the same :/
In the alternative,
and only in the event that the Court
concludes that the jury should decide the
issue of whether
Google’s specifications infringe Oracle’s specifications on
a
class-by-class basis, Google is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law that
none of its specifications for classes
other than CipherInputStream in the
javax.crypto package,
the Cipher class in the javax.crypto package, and the
Pipe
class in the java.nio.channels package infringe the Oracle
specifications
for the corresponding classes.
Waitaminute, so Oracle only put
those into evidence? (!)
The only evidence in the record relates
to these classes;
Oracle did not present evidence on any other classes. Oracle
could have, but didn’t, present evidence of an automated
comparison between
the Android and Java documentation as a
whole, as it did with the implementing
source code. This
absence is telling.
Um... yes.
face meet
palm.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
I said a few days ago I expected a summary judgment in favor of
Google.
Now we have 984. I have no doubt the judge will grant it for several of the
reasons Google has listed. Oracle has over reached and is simply trying to
claim things that no court has ever allowed before. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
"... the judge was able to come to this easy conclusion despite the
insistence of self-described patent expert, Florian Mueller, that the court
would certainly allow Oracle to break its word."
This is such a
gem. I literally laughed out loud; all my co-workers came over to take a look
at what the joke was.
He may be a patent expert (if you can hold off on
challenging his credentials on that for one instant, and I admit that's hard),
but he certainly is very naive about how ground zero in a courtroom is.
Specifically, the whole thing about not presuming to know how the judge is going
to rule.
So, at least for the instant that we are not challenging his
credentials, we have a patent expert who is naive in the court system and/or how
it works. That idea is the making of an oxymoron.
Maybe "naive expert", or
"expert idiot" is the term that comes to mind.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
But Google's point is Oracle can't have it both
ways. Oracle can't
argue that the 37 APIs "taken
individually as as a unit" are covered by a
copyright
registration (a requirement for Oracle to bring a copyright
infringement suit on them, not a requirement for copyright
protection), but by
insisting that the Java copyright
registration is a collective work, Oracle
seems to have
stepped on themselves. Nowhere are those 37 APIs, either
individually or as a unit, subject to a unique copyright
registration; the
only thing Oracle registered was the
copyright in Java as a
whole.
Not only cant they have it both ways, either way is bad.
Oracle took deadly aim with that footgun, its a double
barrel one. They
thought they put in two blanks,
but one is a live round.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
<p>Given the two options - and there might be others - which outcome would
serve free innovation / java in long-term better?</p>
<p><blockquote>The determination of this issue in favor Google will
either (a) result in the dismissal of the copyright claims or (b) provide the
support for Google's de minimis and fair use copying defenses.
</blockquote></p>
<p>mrh.</p>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IMHO Neither - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
- IMHO Neither - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- Gha! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:25 PM EDT
- Doubtful - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- IMHO Neither - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 02:08 PM EDT
- IMHO Neither - Authored by: calris74 on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:43 PM EDT
- PHBs - Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:42 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
Oracle registered was the copyright in Java as a whole.
How does this compare to broad patent claim?
Is this a example of greediness or is just plain stupid ?
/Arthur[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
go on - just for a laugh .... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
and Ooops II
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
I'm expecting him to allow Oracle to go forward, but only on the basis of the
copyright they actually registered, as that is a requirement for bringing suit.
That allows the trial to go forward to develop the factual record and jury
finding as to the exact nature of the copying involved.
The appellate court might disagree with him in either direction at that point,
either dismissing Oracle outright or ruling the court should have given them
leeway to prove ownership of individual packages. Either way, the finding of
fact is fixed and done.
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
I don't think it's as big a deal as Google would like.
It's no wonder the judge did not expect this.
The issue for a summary judgement is whether Oracle
introduced evidence for each element of each claim. In
particular, Oracle has the burden of proving authorship.
One easy way to show authorship (just a prima facie showing,
it can be disproven) is with a copyright registration.
Oracle introduced some registrations showing they wrote
various parts of the Java APIs, but they didn't show
registrations for each of the copyright claims they're
making. In particular, they didn't show a *registration*
for the APIs as a "collective work".
But that's no big deal, registrations are not required.
Registrations only are necessary if you're trying to collect
attorney's fees or statutory damages. Lack of registration
does not automatically mean that Oracle's "collective work"
claims get tossed out. If Oracle introduced any evidence at
all that they're the ones who assembled the collective work,
the claim proceeds (the weight of that evidence is a
question for the jury, not the judge).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
1. The BSF number one defense= Conflate if all .
2. The Scriveners error.= How can you patent a book if you do not comprehend
what you are reading.
3 . The foot gun. = A BSF device.
4. Only BSF supplies the standard From BIllions in settlements, to you do not
own it at all .= LOL.
Go Groklaw![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
Obviously he's on Google's witness list, at least in part due
to the statements he made in the past.
Just wondering if there's any info about whether he's likely
to be generally friendly toward Google's case or Oracle's?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
Well various folks have tried to find something synonymous. Here's my attempt.
An "API" could be considered like forms at the bank.
If you want to get money out, put money in, apply for a loan etc you have to
fill in a form. Different banks may have to go through different procedures to
execute what you want it to do, but in all cases if you want money you have
provide some information about who you are, what your bank account number is and
how much $ you have.
Each bank will have procedures and these will be copyrighted. Even the forms
themselves might be copyrighted.
But if I open a bank and need instruments so people can deal with the bank there
can be no getting around the fact that I need a piece of paper with fields for
"name", "account number" and "amount" and no
getting around the fact that I have to in return give $ or a refusal.
And there is also no getting round the fact that I would need to publish back
office procedure manuals so the clerks know how to properly process the form and
give the response.
Multiply that by everything you can do at a bank these days. Mortgages,
insurance, pensions, investments etc.
What Oracle is alleging isn't that Google copied their back office procedures,
or even their forms. It's that they created some forms of their own with the
same fields, use cases and return values.
It is preposterous (indeed dangerous) for a company to assert such ownership. It
would essentially deny new ventures entry into the same market.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
... is that Oracle can't claim copyright to the APIs because they (Sun) never
acted like APIs were copyrightable. Specifically, they never registered
"the API" with the copyright office.
This doesn't actually address whether APIs are copyrightable. It just says that
Sun *didn't* register the copyrights, and therefore *Java's* APIs are not
copyrighted (and neither is any API so far produced).
The net effect will be that if anyone registers an API with the copyright
office, that API is *dead*, because after this case nobody will touch it.
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: StormReaver on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
After Oracle loses the case on the basis of improper registration, what's to
stop Oracle from re-registering and suing again?
Is Google's motion just delaying the final decision, or is Oracle SOL?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Registration - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT
- Who else can Oracle blame? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT
- Too late - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
- Registration - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
- Registration - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:05 AM EDT |
Notice that Oracle's citations in Docket 986 are for newspapers,
broadcasters, or blogs. Hint, hint, yer Honor.
>> After searching further, Oracle has still found no case law that
squarely addresses whether determination of what constitutes a
“work as whole” for purposes of the defenses of de minimis copying <<
They couldn't find any software related citations. I wonder if there are any...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|