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
Never shipped? | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Gift horse
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:07 AM EDT
I haven't analysed the verdict closely because I don't want to look the gift
horse in the mouth.

I think you have it. I had already come to the conclusion that the jury were
trying very hard and using everything that they had been told. The request to
continue after the weekend was confirmation.

I don't think that developers are generally aware of the copyright dangers of
decompilation. Perhaps it is more the case that high profile and open source
development teams have to be more aware. I think you are spot on that getting
rid of the softies from the jury left them dependent on the court evidence and
instructions. They had no court basis to question the legality of
decompilation.

The fact that Oracle publish the OpenJDK would be a similar issue. Their
instructions could not make it clear that publishing the OpenJDK code did not
licence other code.

For a case without merit, the case was horribly tortuous. The judge did well
with the jury briefing and the questions. I don't think there is any room for
Oracle complaint. On the other hand, there wasn't any justification for the
case, either.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

..and yet 9 lines out of 900 is?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT


And it is very odd, when Google have basically conceded that indeed all of them
were copied.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Never shipped?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT
I thought these were test files that never shipped, so the
"shipped" Android never contained these files.

Or am I misremembering what files these are?

[ 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 )