|
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 05:27 AM EDT |
I couldn't get BitoBear to come clean over what form the API, packages and
classes took.
This goes to the legal issue. Oracle have to show infringement of a registered,
copyright-protected creative expression fixated in a medium.
If Oracle never showed the copyright 'document' to anyone then it could not have
been directly or indirectly copied. Oracle must have revealed something to, say,
Harmony that was copyright and that, when copied, produced the library source
code in the required directory structure that comprised copying of the copyright
'document'.
If Oracle cannot produce the original copyright protected 'document' asserted in
court then no amount of hand-waving should allow them to prevail in court.
Simple question: what is the copyright document or work owned by Oracle and how
can they show that it was copied directly or indirectly by Google? I still don't
see that the document or work being asserted in court was proven to be put into
copyright protectable form (fixated in media) in the first place.
Oracle have only shown the SSO as something that a geek could deduce from the
file names in the class library implementation files and folders. It is only in
the names that Google had to copy that the SSO can be perceived in the 37. The
judge has found that the names and short phrases like the declarations are not
protected by copyright. Can SSO that can only be deduced by a geek from the
unprotectable names be, of itself, a protectable copyright expression fixated
into a medium?
I take your point that Sun put a lot of resources and money into Java. They
wanted Java to be widely adopted both by business and by independent developers
to outsize the Microsoft monopoly. They gave Harmony and Google every
encouragement.
Oracle were there all along. They knew all this when they bought Sun. Whatever
the value that Sun put into Java, Oracle knew that the intention was to share.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
and you give (to me anyway) a clear description of the structure of the code in
relation to package organisation.
There is a traction point on structure and organisation and it certainly applies
on the documentation.
If I may editorialize, I think its a stretch to have same applied to Source code
when it is after all nothing more than the arrangement of some names of some
concepts that are conceptually associated into some larger conceptual package
which translates into a common directory structure per your own analysis.
And when the names that are given to those concepts are taken away what is left
of the compilable code?
OwenAstrachan: 237,000 lines of code in Android. Implementation of the 37
accused API
237,000 lines of code of which...
Oracle: You were talking about 7,000 lines of code is a small piece of Android?
And these are symbol for symbol identical.
Owen Astrachan: Yes.
Which consists of a list of names or non-protectable elements of source code
Traction will only get you so far when your protection is thin.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|