decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Google legal team? | 451 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Google legal team?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:36 AM EDT
To be fair, my assessment is that the poor old judge was struggling with the
subject matter, Oracle's blatant dissembling and obfuscation haven't helped and
Google have been so busy firefighting said dissembling and obfuscation that
they've been unable cogently to put their side of the story.

Remember the old phrase, a lie can be halfway round the world before the truth
has got its pants on.

Of the judge might not be a tech wizard but he's no slouch either. He will find
out Oracle's been selling him a pup sooner or later. He'll go frikkin ape when
he does.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google legal team?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:48 AM EDT

Because infringement of the language and key libraries is how Oracle's claim is described in much of the commentary we see in Groklaw, when Oracle's claim evolved to a final state which is that infringement took place of the documentation of the language, to wit, the names of 37 packages, their classes, and their methods and signatures. Yes, the language is an idea as are what the methods do, but the written documentation is a tangible expression of those ideas. The language cannot be infringed, but the documentation could be. Google's defense would be that it took the info not from Oracle's documentation but Apache's documentation of Harmony. Another Google defense is that the names are not protectable, they didn't take all the packages in modern java, that looking at names and independently writing implementation code and the documentation of their apis, which are a superset to the ones Oracle is suing over, constitutes fair use.

Google did address those issues with their filings and questions of witnesses.

We have a lot of folks down here commenting who are applying the rules for applications to simulating parts of a language by replicating the name choices made by another creator as documented in the specifications and api listings, and it's not a clean fit, just as sheet music or books or dictionaries are also not perfect and guiding analogies. This is why the Judge is letting the jury find facts while he pursues getting the law, heretofore not on point for the circumstances here, correct by asking tough questions of both parties and looking at precedents in related cases.

That's the way I look at it. I also suspect that taking only the names from Oracle's java, though we are talking about over a thousand nouns and verbs, is non-infringing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )