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
Dynamic Symbolic Lookup Patent as describe By Van Nest closing comments. | 484 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT
Please mention the mistake in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT
For all posts that are not on topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT
Please mention the news story's name in the title of the top
post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT
Please post all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ.
Please post the HTML as plain text for easy copying.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Caltrain to Courthouse, long walk
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT
I did this walk once...

True story...
Walking from Caltrain to the courthouse for jury duty.
Crossing Market street, someone asked if I wanted to buy some pot.
Got into the box for voir dire on a drug case.
Judge asked if anyone had experience with drugs.
I couldn't resist, I said, "yes, someone offered to sell me pot on the way
to the
courthouse."
Got a bit of a chuckle.
I was dismissed by the defense, probably for other reasons.

/CSB

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dalvik VM is always running
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT
There are always multiple processes
running that are the dalvik executable.

Each one is running one of the core apps.

These are kicked off by the zygote
process.

So, if your Android device is booted, the
Dalvik VM is running.

Independently of any code that does not
infringe the '104 patent.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tweets from the courtroom
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT

With many thanks to Feldegast and reporters

Feldegast tweets

Raw tweets

[ Reply to This | # ]

The end of Psystar's adventure
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT
One down, several more to go.

When does SCO end? It's currently cleard for trial, but not scheduled. SCO
seems to be completely undead, not in Chapter 7 but not (as far as I've seen)
filing monthly reports any more with the bankruptcy court in Delaware. How long
can they survive in that state before the BK court pulls the plug?

But we're a lot closer to the end there than we are in Oracle v. Google (not but
what it may take SCO much longer in terms of calendar time). This one's going
to the Supreme Court, and the SC may actually take this one.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fee shifting?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT
Doesn't the party that registered copyrights as Oracle purportedly did
here get reimbursed for their attorneys fees if they win?

I wonder if the same holds true for patents?

Might explain why Oracle's lawyers apply no brakes. If they win, their
client racked up all those attorney fees on Google's dime.

Wasn't there some similar dynamic at work in the SCO case, unlimited
attorneys work for a guaranteed flat payment? Seems to be a similar
focus in each case to ratchet up the amount of work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Car trouble disqualifies a juror?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT
Apparently, it's not possible for Judge Alsup to send out a marshal to pick up
the juror?

I saw one time a lady left her purse with keys, wallet and bus pass inside a
post office at closing time, and it was locked behind her. A marshal eventually
prevailed upon the local postmaster to let the lady retrieve her purse. (A pity
that's what it took.)

So, it's not as if a marshal doesn't sometimes act like a local officer to help
people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have lost all respect for Mr Jacobs.
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
In his closing arguments Mr Jacobs was a prime example of
what I hate in Lawyers. He took peoples words out of context,
and in some places lied. He twisted and danced around the
truth. This gives some lawyers a bad name, because if
protecting your client forces you to lie then you have lost
from the beginning.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Grandiose claims are sometimes actionable
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT
Extrapolate. I'll tell you a secret. Lawyers talking to the media are talking on behalf of their client. Some of them sometimes say things they know are more braggadocio than reality.

Although it rarely happens, sometimes speaking more "braggadocio than reality" can personally expose the attorney(s) doing so (as well as their client) to an actionable countersuit.

My own case (PRATT v. NELSON 200, No. 20051167, May 18, 2007), argued before the Utah Supreme Court, is proof.

The original suit against us (for which our countersuit, in the above reference, is about) was filed in 2003. At the deposition of the plaintiff in the original suit, the first question my own attorney asked the plaintiff was "do you know Nevin Pratt". The plaintiff's answer was "no". The second question my own attorney asked the plaintiff was "do you know Denise Pratt", and again the plaintiff's answer was "no" (there were more defendant attorneys present than just my own, because the original suit was against multiple people).

In the original case (for which we countersued in the reference above), my wife and I were sued by somebody we did not even know, concerning an event that we were completely unaware of, where the alleged event took place at a time when I was provably two thousand miles away from the location of the alleged event, and my wife was provably hundreds of miles away from the location of the alleged event.

Quite frankly, we had no idea how we ended up as defendents in their suit. My best guess is that it was a case of mistaken identity, but I really have no idea. And, their suit was publicized by their attorney(s) extensively. And it accused us personally of all sorts of what we consider to be unsavory actions and behaviors.

We considered it to be a clear case of defamation. And so we countersued on those grounds.

Normally, attorneys and plaintiffs are protected by judicial immunity in the claims they make in their court filings, and in their reporting of such claims to the media. But we argued that immunity could be lost through excessive publication. The court initially sided with them. We appealed. The Appellant Court sided with them. We filed with the Utah Supreme Court. The Utah Supreme Court agreed to hear our case, and when argued before them, they sided with us. They said, in part:

We hold that appellate review of the Pratts' judicial privilege argument is not precluded by the invited error doctrine.   We also hold that the Nelsons' statements lost through excessive publication any immunity they may have otherwise enjoyed under the judicial proceeding privilege.   Finally, we hold that the group defamation rule does not preclude the Pratts' defamation claim. Therefore, we remand to the district court for further consideration of the Pratts' defamation claim.

That was a major Supreme Court victory for us. And, I believe this ruling was the catalyst that enabled productive settlement talks.

So, the first thing that folks should learn from this is that grandiose claims are sometimes actionable.

And, another lesson from all of this is that lawsuits rarely stand alone. They almost always invoke a countersuit. Thus, you will almost never be in "just one" lawsuit. You will almost always be in at least two, if you are in it at all. So think about that before you decide to sue someone, and make sure you are prepared to fight that war on more than one front. Because you almost certainly will need to.

And, another thing that I can confirm is that, just as PJ says, settlements rarely can be discussed in public. And because of that, I probably will not respond any more to this thread, with any additional details, other than what I have said above.

The very best thing is to do all you can to stay out of court, if it is at all possible. It's not cheap. And, in my opinion, it's almost never productive for anybody but the attorneys, no matter which side you are otherwise on.

But if you have to go to court, don't bluff. Make it real.

Nevin Pratt

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wouldn't call it "braggadocio"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT
PJ: "Some of them sometimes say things [in public] they know are more
braggadocio than reality."

I would respectfully disagree with that assessment. It's clearly attempting to
poison the potential jury pool, or make a fair trial otherwise impossible.

And that's why I was glad to see SCO Germany get punished for trying it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Encouraging the Beast
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:03 PM EDT
I just heard from a reliable source that Oracle is trying to demand of Boeing,
one percent of the value of any program using Java be paid annually to Oracle
for that use of the 'free to use' Java language.

That would be -your- tax dollars for the Boeing defence programs (among others)
that Oracle is trying to syphon off.

This is some strange reinterpretation of Sun's promise of 'free' Oracle is
placing on the Java language as a whole.

If it wasn't free to reimplement, and now in "secret" negotiations it
isn't "free" to use, it was what? Free to admire from afar?

My understanding is that Boeing's response was something on the order of
"one percent per year is nowhere near reasonable a price, go ahead and sue,
you'll lose."

Java is Dead.... Bury it before it starts to stink.

Disclaimer: I don't work for Boeing or Oracle, but I am frequently near people
who do. As gossip goes this is as reliable as gossip can get. IMHO of course.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Respect!
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT
Alsup says he's been writing code since this trial started. He's written rangeCheck code a "100 times". Incredulous Oracle claiming damages....

---
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 | # ]

Rachel King: The #OraclevGoogle press corps agrees: This trial is a mess.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:55 PM EDT
Not sure if Rachel King is really reporting what the press corps thinks or just
trying to cover for her earlier reporting. The trial isn't a mess, Oracle's case
is a mess. The trial is pretty clear. Van Nest's closing arguments were to the
point and provided a clear summary of why Oracle's claims are invalid. In
contrast, Jacobs' earlier closing summary and his rebuttal of Google's summary
were convoluted, contorted, and apologetic for Oracle's mistakes during the
trial.

Unless the jury is full of people who used the "dog ate my homework"
excuse for handing in an undecipherable wad of paper - and feel overwhelming
sympathy for Oracle as a result - I think that, in the judge's words, "no
reasonable jury" can find for any of the plaintiff's claims based on the
offered evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I do wonder if the problem with Boies is that he's been around too long & doesn't care anymore
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT
I have to think that most lawyers, essentially being told by a senior judge that
they're behaving like a buffoon, would back off and consider their (and their
client's) position.

Boies though - it just seems to wash past him like the judge has simply wished
him a pleasant day!

Does he really think he's that good? Is he really that good? Not with SCO as a
reference.

Baffling, truly baffling.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's proposed deal this afternoon - doesn't make sense?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT
From Rachel King's ZDNet article:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/judge-continues- to-criticize-oracle-for-going-after-infringers-profits/77106

Boi es proposed to the court that if Alsup rules that the 37 Java APIs from phase one are actually not copyrightable, Oracle will accept a roadmap leading to statutory damages. The significance here is the payout potential is far smaller for Oracle as the maximum is $150,000.

This doesn't really seem to make sense to me?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Woot! Alsup coding!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
I think that's fantastic!

It gives him direct experience of exactly how hard those 3
if statements are. IMO, there are very few people who know
about writing software who would think that there is
_anything_ special about RangeCheck. It's brilliant that he
realised that he needed to understand the technology
properly to be able to make a judgement; it gives me some
hope for the US justice system, which from all the stuff
I've seen on Groklaw seems quite often not fit for purpose.

Secondly, with respect to structure, it makes it clear to
him exactly how Java works from a structure point of view; I
don't think that the sso argument holds much water once you
realise that there are certain things that were fixed in
Java.

The only part of the API that I think is vulnerable to
Oracles sso argument is the names of parameters, which in
Java, do not need to be the same. Other languages have other
rules of interoperation, and in some languages the names of
the parameters do count as part signature, but not Java,
which gives them an element of copyrightablity through not
being a matter of choice in a new implementation of the API.
For certain parameters there are some names where there's
not a lot of sensible choice - for instance, there's not any
real choice about a parameter called 'color' - what else can
you call it? But there's a little choice with things like
'toIndex' and 'fromIndex' which could be 'endIndex' and
'startIndex'. But these are also functional, and aren't
there to add color to the API, so I can't imagine that they
are protectable.

Imo, speaking as a developer, Oracle didn't prove
infringement of the patents. They had go to ridiculous
linguistic ends to paint the patents as covering what
Android does.

Regarding $150,000. I know we are looking at that as a
baseline. But actually, I'd like to see him award Oracle
$60. Being about the cost to write those 3 if statement and
test them. I think a $150K win could be spun by Oracle as
some sort of moral victory, but a $60 win would be some
fantastic mockery of $6B, and I can't see how Oracle could
paint it in a good light. I know that won't happen, but it's
what is deserved for wasting the court's time, Google's
time, the jury's time, and our time.

But most importantly about him learning Java - with every
new developer in the world, the world becomes a better
place; another person who can manipulate the technology
that surrounds us, and another one who will realise in due
course that software is culture and should be open. Double
woot!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Taxes?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT
"And I expect that the amount of taxes and costs in this case, there will
be a lot of them."

Is that like Google getting to stick Oracle for Google's costs, if Oracle
doesn't have a shred of a case? And is Alsup therefore tipping his hand that he
doesn't think Oracle has had a shred of a case?

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Test Files Redux
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
I've been wondering about those test files SO I'll ask a couple of questions and
see if someone can help me out.

What do that Test?

Are they part of OpenJDK?

If they were released under GPL v2, was decompliling the improper?


---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

APIs and copyright
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
PJ wrote:
And did any of us guess that this judge can code? That is the biggest surprise of the entire trial, to me. No wonder he was able to comprehend the technical testimony. But it does make me wonder, why then is he having such a hard time figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted?

That's the biggest surprise of the trial for me too. How awesome is that!

But I'd just like to point out that we don't know whether Judge Alsup is actually having a hard time figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted. Its possible he already has this figured out, and just needs to make sure all the legal i's are dotted and t's are crossed before he makes his ruling. Even if (suppose) he were 95% sure he knows how it should go, maybe he just hasn't had time to do the due dilligence and check all of his references etc. for it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

why then is he having such a hard time figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:56 PM EDT
Because his job is not making a verdict corresponding to sanity, but
corresponding to the law. And the law has not been written by programmers. You
need to map its meaning to the case. And it is not the question what makes
sense to the judge: he is not the one making the laws.

If the law leads to bad results when applied to the case, the judge is not in a
position to fix that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

rangeCheck - a copyright question
Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT
I'm surprised that a programmer could get a copyright on something as trivial as
rangeCheck which requires three comparisons to be carried out. Assuming they are
independent, these comparisons can only be ordered 6 different ways.

So the 7th person could not write rangeCheck without infringing on one of the 6
earlier implementations. What nonsense!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mitchell credibility
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT
Oracle: Mitchell made an honest mistake

Google: Mitchell changed his mind

Who will the jury believe? Burden of proof is on Oracle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Symbolic vs Numeric References
Authored by: kds on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT
Let me see if I got this right: If symbolic references were used, there would
be a table somewhere that would pair up the symbol ("y",
"fun", "White House") to some other data (possibly an
address location). In the case of a numeric reference (IE Google's version of
what was done), this table doesn't exist in the form of symbol1, data1, symbol2,
data2, etc. but as a table of data1, data2, etc.

If the numeric references (referred to as CCCC in the trial) were used as
symbolic references as Oracle states, wouldn't the table be in the form of
CCCC1, data1, CCCC2, data2, etc.? The mere absence of the symbolic references
in the table proves that the numeric references are NOT symbolic references but
as numeric offsets into a table.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ's 100-dollar-question
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT
But it does make me wonder, why then is he having such a hard time figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted?
From what I read, I gain the impression that this judge is sharp as a needle and very conscientious. And he takes pride in what he does. Very much unlike a bankruptcy judge in Delaware. But that is, of course, a completely different story. I am quite sure that he is aware of the repercussions a decision on copyright in APIs is going to have in the industry. If he is, we can be quite sure what his gut feelings are. But I guess that he knows very well that the number of coding judges in the court of appeals is limited. In order not to be overturned, the order he is going to write must be both legally and technically fool-proof. And it must be accessible to non-programmers, because BSF are virtuosos in pulling the wool over the eyes of those who are not in the know. It is his task to translate the evidence in the record into a language that is at once legally flawless and transparent to non-experts. I don't envy him and I hope the best.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are we watching Boies case fall apart?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT
Or is it another trick...
Oracle: Yes, it is. And one of the things I suggested is that these two tiny issues should not be the single subject of phase 3. For example, if you decide against us on copyrightability, this will resolve the issue--
This makes it clear what the easy (and correct) solution is. He's almost asking the judge to rule against him.
Judge: It won't resolve rangeCheck. That's still there, and I don't want to be stampeded into making a decision. I have a lot to read before I can tell you what the answer is on the big issue. So in the meantime, we have to get through the rest of phase 3. We're in this position where I think you are making a huge stretch. [Boies tries to say something, but the judge cuts him off]
He's repeatedly hearing that the judge doesn't buy into the beelions.
Oracle: Can I make one suggestion? I haven't talked to my client, sometimes my clients shoot me for these things, but let me make a proposal: put off sending this to the jury, and if it's determined that there's no copyrightability for the APIs, we'll take statutory damages for these two things and not make an infringer's profits claim. If it turns out we eventually go to the jury on the API damages, we'll seek infringer's profits at that time.
Translation: We think we should get beelions, but we want a fallback to thousands. I'm not quite sure I see why the judge should go for this. He's already stated that Oracle have to choose. He's already made it clear that the trial schedule is important.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup - Programmer
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT
"No wonder he was able to comprehend the technical testimony. But it does
make me wonder, why then is he having such a hard time figuring out whether APIs
can be copyrighted?"

I don't think he's having as much of a hard time with the figuring as he is
taking his time to research all the relevant case law and make sure his
decision, when issued, is as well stated and supported as possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

However it works out Judge Alsop's been worth the price of admission!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:49 PM EDT
Judge: You can't win with RangeCheck.

Oracle: No, it's really really important.

Judge: Witness testified a high-school student could code it.

Oracle: No, No, Google made squillions by copying it.

Judge: It really is very simple. Don't go there - please?!

Oracle: We will show RangeCheck was the sole basis of Android's success and
still intend to claim squillions.

Judge: I'm a programmer. I could, and have, written RangeCheck in half a dozen
languages, in as many ways, before I've even had my first coffee of the
morning.

Oracle: Ulp!!!

You have to think he's spent most of the trial waiting to drop that in.

Love the guy - absolute star.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dynamic Symbolic Lookup Patent as describe By Van Nest closing comments.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:54 PM EDT
Has anyone actually read the patent that Robert Van Nest summarises in his
closing remarks? Are his remarks accurate as a description of the patent
claims?

If so, why on earth was it ever given? The book "Concurrency and
Programming Languages" by David M. Harland published in 1986 by Halstead
Press describes this technique as a general use method for programming
languages.

It truly bemuses me that all patent systems have been so stretched out of shape
that there are more than a dozen patents given in any year. There are just not
that many new ideas that come up - mostly a rehash or reapplication of existing
ideas to new situations.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Boies - "I probably couldn't program that in six months"
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:19 PM EDT
Apparently he has trouble coming up
with a solid case in three times that timeframe.

Is he in the wrong profession?

Judge Alsup could probably teach him some of
the finer points.

Oh, wait, maybe he already has.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom - Day 17 of Oracle v. Google ~pj - Updated 5Xs
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:42 PM EDT
PJ asks about this unusual judge who can write code:
why then is he having such a hard time figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted?
Could this be a 9th Circuit (California) thing? This is where Hollywood and Silicon Valley are located. IIRC they are the only circuit which doesn't accept the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test of copyright infringement. Perhaps judges over there have a tendency not to curtail copyright law without a strong reason. It may be dictated by the attitudes of who sit on the 9th circuit appeal court.

I am just speculating here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Law firms and lawyers
Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT

I think we know Jacobs from the SCO case, or at least the law firm. Just out of curiosity, I assume some of the same lawyers (like Jacobs) were involved in that too, on behalf of Novell?

Is the firm representing Google, and van Nest, familiar from some context?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two points
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 09:38 PM EDT
Judge: You're required to make an election. Are you now saying you elect to try for 504 damages and profits and not statutory damages?

Oracle: Yes, Your Honor.
The Judge should know by now to get that in writing :)

And: if Judge Alsup is in fact dabbling with learning Java, someone should point him at Project Euler (I bet he'd love it) so he hurries up with the SSO ruling (yes, I know he is in fact doing his best already).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle finest hour
Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 11:11 PM EDT
This was not Oracle's finest hour and five minutes.
Oh I don't know. I have been dealing with Oracle for over a decade now and if they have had a finer hour and 5 mins I sure haven't seen it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is justice really blind, or do celebrity lawyers get more leeway?
Authored by: IANALitj on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:01 AM EDT
Yesterday, there was a thread with this topic.

The first response was from PJ:

"Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:47 PM EDT

"The truth? I have reached the conclusion
that celebrity lawyers get more leeway."

Here, I think we are seeing the other side of the coin. Judge Alsup says:
"You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that
kind of argument?"

That is directly attributable to celebrity status, but I wouldn't call it giving
him leeway. It's putting him on a tighter leash.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom - Day 17 of Oracle v. Google ~pj - Updated 5Xs
Authored by: Rubberman on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT
"So everybody gets to do more briefs, due by 9 PM tonight.
Still think you want to be a lawyer? I'm guessing not. And
did any of us guess that this judge can code? That is the
biggest surprise of the entire trial, to me. No wonder he
was able to comprehend the technical testimony. But it does
make me wonder, why then is he having such a hard time
figuring out whether APIs can be copyrighted?"

Personally, and professionally (as a software engineer), I
think the judge is performing due diligence so whatever he
rules will not be overturned on appeal (one can hope). I am
sure, now, that he realizes that the entire API conundrum is
a real black hole that will negatively impact many
industries and companies. An albatross that he would not
want hanging around his neck!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't think that's it
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:11 AM EDT
Our reporter's notes of what Judge Alsup said about this:
Judge: We heard the testimony of Mr. Bloch. I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?
I looked back through the Day 4 article, which was the day that Josh Bloch testified. I couldn't find anything in the notes from that would match what the Judge was saying, above (if he was in fact quoting Bloch's testimony today).

It looks to me as if Judge Alsup was talking about his own experience, and using it like a threat to say "don't try to pull the wool over my eyes about this".

Maybe our reporter for today, if he or she reads this, could clarify how they perceived the Judge's comment?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Juror 2
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:40 AM EDT

I feel sad that Juror 2 had to leave the case. To have spent all these weeks sorting through technical issues and then be removed at the 10th hour because of car trouble.

She didn't go all the way, but here's my heartfelt thanks for her sacrifice in serving.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Courtroom - Day 17 of Oracle v. Google ~pj - Updated 5Xs
Authored by: hairbear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:01 AM EDT
Crikey .... Boies got deep fried !

hairbear

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reporter appreciation thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 06:31 AM EDT
PJ, does the reporter for this day have a nym or a name to go by?

This was a truly amazing job, the closest to a real time verbatim transcription
that we have ever seen here.

Thank you reporter for such wonderful work!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now, I believe one dedicated juror is still in the jury room, reading one of those books.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 07:59 AM EDT
Now, what happens if, in his reading in the jury room, the juror finds the
substance of one of those patents disclosed therein?
From what I've heard of these patents, it is not an unlikely occurrence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's lawyer says that GPLv2 gives you patent rights
Authored by: qubit on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT

From the closing statement by Jacobs (emphasis mine):

The specification says the virtual machine is protected by patents. They could have taken the GPL version of Java. That would have granted them patent rights. [!] There was some concern there by Mr. Rubin that maybe Sun would say patents weren't included. But that wasn't why they rejected the GPL; it's because the GPL is viral, and the carriers wouldn't accept that. That's not the issue here, though. He had a GPL option, and he didn't take it.

This statement is definitely helpful for anyone who might seek to use the OpenJDK or any other Sun/Oracle GPL-licensed code in the future. I might suggest that people avoid Java anyhow, just to avoid having to deal with Oracle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Programmer speed
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT
"Suppose they accelerated it two days."

No wonder Oracle is suing. It takes their programmers two days to write 9 lines
of code!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

On copyright ability of SSO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:48 PM EDT
I don't understand how there could be any debate as to whether SSO can be
copyrighted or not, when it's applied to a programming language.

Take English for example - you HAVE to construct sentences in a specific order
for others to understand what you're trying to say. The structure of the
sentences is inherent to the language and is necessary for it to remain that
language. You change that - it's different language, then. Sure, we could all
understand what Yoda saying was :) But that's something different and can't be
applied to a precise science of programming.

Just my $.02 :)

Regards - dniq.

[ Reply to This | # ]

api cr - From the Courtroom - Day 17 of Oracle v. Google ~pj - Updated 5Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT
It may not be that he is having a hard time. It may be he wants to
answer every possible argument with his decision, because he knows
what a mess it would be if it got overturned on appeal.

By the way rolling over and over on the floor laughing my guts out.

Who'd of thunk courtroom proceedings woud be high comedy?


Just hope this doesn't disqualify the judge!

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )