|
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Although IIRC, the documentation was part of Oracle's original complaint and if
Google had copied a lot of Oracle's source comments verbatim (which become the
documentation) then they would have been liable for infringement. However,
there was no verbatim copying. If Oracle wins on the documentation then they
will have successfully copyrighted not just one idea, but hundreds.
I
wholeheartedly agree with you that one of the biggest holes in Oracle's
argument is the dog that didn't bark in the night:
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): Is there any
other point to which
you would wish to draw my
attention?
Holmes: To the curious
incident of the dog in the
night-time.
Gregory: The dog did
nothing in the night-time.
Holmes: That was the curious
incident.
Oracle is asking the jury to believe that Sun's
objections to Android starting right after November 12, 2007 when the Android
SDK was made public. It is preposterous that there would be no written record
of their attempts to stem the tide of this massive, wholesale infringement of
their precious IP. Oracle knew exactly what Harmony was. They knew perfectly
well that Harmony implemented the Java APIs because they were negotiating with
Harmony over the use of the TCK.
On November 12, 2007, headlines heralded
Google's use of Harmony:
Google's Android SDK
Bypasses Java ME in Favor of Java Lite and Apache Harmony. Imagine if this
headline was about giving away software that was worth millions of dollars to
*you*. Wouldn't you jump on this right away? Wouldn't you at the very least
retract the public praise for Android you made a week before? Where are the
letters and emails that were sent to Google? Where are the minutes from the
meetings with Google? Where are the internal documents showing how the company
mobilized to nip this massive breach in the bud?
None of that evidence was
presented to the jury because none of it exists. Oracle's story contradicts the
direct testimony of the CEOs (from that time) of both Sun and Google. It
contradicts Sun's public praise for Android. Sure, Oracle's story is possible
but they have not given a shred of evidence that would indicate the outrage that
must have occurred if Sun really thought Google was giving all of their
precious, protected IP away for free. Look at the outrage, frustration, and
indignation that has been expressed in the courtroom. Why was none of it
expressed back in 2007? Or 2008? Or even 2009? Would *you* have let this
outrageous, massive public theft of your property go on uncontested for three
years? No. No one would. They knew about it. They told the world they
approved of it and they did nothing to stop it.
--- 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 | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
"If Oracle wins on the SSO issue, this becomes moot."
You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
moot/mo͞ot/
Adjective:
Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a
final decision.
Verb:
Raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
A moot point is one that is subject to uncertainty, still up for debate. Not
one that is of no consequence due to other circumstance (which is what I think
you mean).
The phrase, "That's a moot point", means that's an unproven point.
Unproven points in logical debates are disregarded, however applying the
unproven or questionable properties to other things in different contexts
typically does not have the same effect.
Perhaps I'm incorrect, and you mean to say that if Oracle wins on SSO then this
calls into question the SSO decision. Thanks to your use of 'this' I may arrive
at this interpretation, or some other... However, I still do not think you have
conveyed what you meant to.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|