|
Authored by: fredex on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:25 AM EDT |
Please place any corrections here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:26 AM EDT |
Who's up for that challenge?
---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No application or program written for the J2SE platform runs on Android. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:28 AM EDT
- First challenger! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:53 AM EDT
- No application or program written for the J2SE platform runs on Android. - Authored by: Henning Makholm on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:14 AM EDT
- No application or program written for the J2SE platform runs on Android. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT
- No application or program written for the J2SE platform runs on Android. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT
- Large libraries for J2SE run great on Android - Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- libGDX - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- No application or program written for the J2SE platform runs on Android. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT
- Hello, Oracle World! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- Whole Program Running Is Meaningless Anyways - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- Android is not, never has been, and never will be Java - Authored by: symbolset on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 12:46 AM EDT
- The talking point de jour apparently - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:29 AM EDT |
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-05-24/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
Such as the price of Tea in China [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- EU hoping Greece doesn't make "drachmatic" exit - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT
- Off topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:33 AM EDT
- Does it seem the jury foreman mis-used his authority? - Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- slashdot scoops Groklaw! Supreme Court Orders Do-Over On Key Software Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:31 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- You ask good questions - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- I've been making a similar point here for years - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- Go to left of screen, find Search, Keyword- PoIR , Subject- Patents , Type- Stories - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Maths is not reality - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 06:17 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? Yes ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:30 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:18 PM EDT
- Challenge for those wishing to claim software is not math - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 10:22 AM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- Ya lost me.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- Heise Germany has got a problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- Date set for EC Microsoft antitrust fine decision - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- Washington Post: Google’s patent trial win seen as ‘near disaster’ for Oracle - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- Nasruddin - Authored by: Tkilgore on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT
- Report: HP's webOS Enyo team moving to Google - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 08:03 AM EDT
- UK government supports Open Data Institute with £10 million - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
"longer symbolic but static" ? What does that mean? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
Oracle - "applications and programs written for the J2SE
platform will not run on Android"...
So, Sun's CEO didn't seem to care.
AND, Google doesn't care either.
If they did care, then they would have followed SUN's idea
and rules, where they would have to check for compatibility
using SUN's program.... and on top of that, could call the
whole thing "JAVA". However, they took the Harmony route,
and could make their own, and not call it JAVA, and not make
it perfectly "like" JAVA from a compatibility point of view.
All that SUN CEO thought about, and approved of as being ok,
... as SUN CEO said and meant in court, is that, the real
benefit of folks using JAVA and knockoffs of JAVA, knockoffs
via the free license that SUN allowed others to develop and
program under, is, that the folks out there in the computer
world were using something other than using Microsoft's
government supported Monopoly lock-in software - that SUN
could not compete with if it was "TOO STRONG" and used by
everyone - for fracturing is good, Microsoft ONLY is very
bad. Got it now.
FACT - one reason why GPL software exists, as FREE software
was the only thing for a while that seemed able to exist
without fear of MS building the same thing, and putting you
out of business (or just buying you out, and killing off the
software in favor of their own version). Then, like Fox Pro
... killing their own MS software to move people to buy
something else costing business a lot of money that they
would not have to spend if MS just would support what they
had out there, even if it wasn't making then new license
money.
So, SUN knew about MS, and knew that FREE software (as in
Speech), was one way they could use, so used, to get their
software USED enough so that they could play and license a
little bit (depending) for tools etc as well. AND, maybe
then MS didn't grow anymore into spaces where SUN was
already... including putting their SUN UNIX out of business
via MS OS being so profitable due to APPs and TOOLs, that
none would use the SUN software, or hardware, bye bye SUN.
Free was the only option... remember, the US government and
the courts never really corrected the MS Monopoly, they just
made it look like something was done, but in reality,
everyone in the computer business, who were techs saw the
reality that the lawyers, and judges, and US government
Justice Dept lawyers, could not see (as the lawyers, like in
this case about APIs and SW Patents, don't understand
either).
SW patents, should not exist. Software is MATH. That is a
fact.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ais523 on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
There's something that didn't really resonate in the coverage of the trial for
me, but which seems pretty clear from the jury questions. There's a huge number
of questions all on the same subject: could Google have copied the APIs from
some free-to-use source which wasn't Sun or Oracle? (Apache was mentioned
frequently.)
I'm not sure how I'd have answered these, had I been in the judge/lawyers'
positions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Could Google have got a license from someone other than Sun/Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: Mark Haanen on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- Interesting ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 08:06 AM EDT
- Interesting ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: AlexWright on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- They did. - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:30 PM EDT
- you missed the point I think - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
From OraGoogle-1191/ page 3
In Android, Google could have created
different exception
lists using supertypes of the
listed exceptions. “For
each checked exception that can
result from execution of the body of
a
method or constructor, a compile-time error occurs unless
that exception
type or a supertype of
that exception type is mentioned in a throws clause
in the
declaration of the method or
constructor.” TX 984 at 221 (emphasis
added). For example,
in the case of the verify() method
listed above, all
of the listed exceptions are subtypes of
java.security.GeneralSecurityException.
TX 610.2
at
/docs/api/java/security/GeneralSecurityException.html. The
method would
still
compile if the throws clause had included only
GeneralSecurityException.
Oracle doesn't tell the whole
truth. In order to stay
compatible Google must throw the
same
Exceptions.
Otherwise Code (which would compile), would
wait for the
wrong Exception.
This simple example would no longer work
correctly.
try {
verify(publicKey,
sigProvider);
} catch (SignatureException ex)
{
LOGGER.warn("Signature Exception", ex);
} catch
(GeneralSecurityException ex) {
LOGGER.error("Other verify
exception", ex);
}
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
Google says:
because the SSO of the 37 API packages is functionally
required for compatibility, Google was entitled to use that SSO, regardless of
whether its use made Android fully compatible or not.
So the SSO
doesn't become magically copyrightable if compatibility is not implemented. Nice
observation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:26 AM EDT |
Document 1191, page 9 (10/14)
Google undermined interoperability by
creating an
incompatible fork of the Java platform. The
uncontroverted
evidence at trial was that Google is the only
company that is commercially
using
the Java APIs that has not taken a license. See, e.g., RT
293:8-294:21 (Ellison); 385:20-386:8
(Kurian), 487:10-488:7
(Page).
What is Oracle refering to?
I thought HP
had its own jvm and that there are others too?
Am I missing
something?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:33 AM EDT |
To respond to Oracle, even J2SE does not distribute all classes that
implement the interfaces defined in the JAVA API.
Interfaces are defined so that the API can call code (classes and methods) not
yet implemented. When you create a class in a modern IDE and state that it
implements an interface, that IDE will copy the SSO of that interface to help
you. If interfaces are copywriteable, then IDEs such as Eclipse are inducers to
infringement. In fact, code that uses an interface requires that it has the same
SSO as defined to even include the fully qualified name of that interface.
The public methods on a class are considered to be the interface of that class.
The only difference is that you cannot declare a class as implementing
another class.
This shows that APIs are generally considered to be uncopywriteable subject
matter by the industry.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Interfaces - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- SSO???? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
Love this line from Oracle's brief:
Copying to lure a competitor’s
developers is not
the same as reverse engineering to ensure
interoperability.
First, "lure"--having a subset of Java skills
apply to both
Android and Java is actually of benefit to Oracle. Consider a
developer who must decide whether to invest in learning Java
or in learning
Objective C.
Second, "competitor"--where exactly can I buy that Pure
Java
smartphone? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
It's fascinating to see those original handwritten notes from
the Jury. Thanks so much, PJ!
It's interesting that many of those notes don't seem to have
received answers. Wonder why...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darlmclied on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
Just read this:
FUD filled article on
zdnet.com
Author claims
to have been in the courthouse, I suspect they
were in a different trial. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
It's an interesting strategy. Oracle have forced Google to
defend so far on the basis of "no it's not Java, it was
never intended to be compatible with Java", in order to now
try to get them in trouble for not producing a compatible
implementation
Both in terms of implying fragmentation, and denying fair
use for compatibility.
I wonder if this was actually a clever strategy. Still
hoping for a ruling that it's not copyrightable anyway, so
getting fair use on this might not be the best result
(though it would be good result for Google) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
Clearly, if things go Google's way, the tables will
reverse. It will be the Java boys that will have to
conform their Java programs to run on Android, or
their products will start to lose functionality and
marketability.
Far do the mighty fall.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
Android consists of two main components:
- Linux Core
- Android
Runtime
Anrdoid apps are hosted applications (like J2EE apps but not
exactly) and the developer does not directly code a main method (Is there a
implied call to main by the Android runtime when a process is started?).
At
the Linux level the dalvikvm command is equivalent to the java command from the
JRE. It is possible to run dalvik bytecode programs with a main method from the
linux command line. See here:
Da
lvik VM Invocation
It is possible for Google, OEM's,
Carriers, and programmers with rooted devices to run any JSE program with main
and using the 37 API's that has been converted to Dalvik bytecode on an Android
device.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
I pushed off learning Java for so long.. and the only thing that actually made
me try was Android. This trial has made me question that decision. I know
Google has a C API for Android, but my understanding was that it is more for low
level libraries that need lots of control. Is it possible to write a full app
in C? Or possible to write in something other than Java without using a cross
compiler that spits out Java or Java bytecode?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
All valid Java byte-code can be directly translated to a valid Android
byte-code. Therefore the two systems are compatible.
All this talk about not having implemented the complete API or differences in
the main() method are irrelevant.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
This case seems more about winning an argument than considering what they really
want or need from the outcome. If Oracle were to prevail in all of its
arguments, it would likely mean a migration away from Java. Sure, there'll be
some holdouts for legacy reasons, but any new development work would first have
to reconsider whether Java would be a good choice. Perhaps I am missing
something, but I don't know of too many languages with this type of problem.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
From microsoft.com/en-
us/library/system.web.script.serial
ization.javascriptseriali
zer.aspx:
"Provides serialization and
deserialization functionality
for AJAX-enabled
applications."
What are AJAX-enabled applications in this context?
Do they
have any bearing to what is fragmentation and what is not?
Especially
since Turing-complete languages probably can be
translated on-the-fly with some
speed penalty:
JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is a lightweight
data-
interchange format. It is easy for humans to read and write.
It is easy
for machines to parse and generate. It is based
on a subset of the JavaScript
Programming Language, Standard
ECMA-262 3rd Edition - December 1999. JSON is a
text format
that is completely language independent but uses conventions
that
are familiar to programmers of the C-family of
languages, including C, C++, C#,
Java, JavaScript, Perl,
Python, and many others. These properties make JSON an
ideal
data-interchange language.
JSON is built on two
structures:
- A collection of name/value pairs. In various languages,
this
is realized as an object, record, struct, dictionary, hash
table, keyed
list, or associative array.
- An ordered list of values. In most languages,
this is
realized as an array, vector, list, or sequence.
These are
universal data structures. Virtually all modern
programming languages support
them in one form or another.
It makes sense that a data format that is
interchangeable
with programming languages also be based on these
structures.
To me it seems any language difference is not so
relevant,
if they are Turing-complete. But, here I'm in deep water,
deeper
than usual... :|
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
Always liked Winter's signature: "Some say the sun rises in the east, some
say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between."
I propose a new one: "Some say software is mathematics, some say it isn't;
the truth lies probably somewhere in between."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
The JSE libraries use many techniques to get services from the host platform
when running a JVM.
One technique is known as bridging. The JSE does not
implement a feature itself but acquires the feature from the host platform.
Classes in java.awt.* depend on the underlying windowing system of the host
platform. In particular, java.awt.Component is a bridge to an actual drawable
surface from the host windowing system. Also in java.awt, button, checkbox,
choice and all other classes descendent from Component are bridged to native
window components, they are not implemented in Java - they are implemented in
Windows, or Linux, or whatever.
Java adapts to the host platform it can not
dictate to the host platform. Image Oracle / Sun telling Microsoft how they must
implement the API for the Windows platform.
Android linux does not include a
native windowing system (i.e) one that runs purely as a native process. This is
a host operating feature system-level decision and does not need to consider the
needs of the Java API.
Since java.awt depend on bridging to a native
windowing system and android linux does not include a native windowing system
there is no need to implement java.awt. Also it makes no sense to implement any
packages that depend on java.awt: these include java.swing, java.applet and
easily argued java.print.
Many Operating Systems can run without a
WindowManager (a GUI) including all variations of UNIX (Solaris, AIX, ...),
Linux, and Windows Server. Many datacenter servers running java programs do so
without running a WindowManager and no java programs depending on awt, swing,
applet or print will run on them.
Are all of the Fortune 100 companies in
violation of their java licenses because they run servers without
WindowsManagers and therefore can not run any of the GUI based demos described
in Oracle brief, however, HelloWorld should run.
Some other bridges in the
JSE (remember, where Java defines the interface and somebody else puts in the
effort of actually building the code that works) include: JDBC (java.sql), Java
Sound (java.sound.*), XML parsers, JNDI (javax.naming.*), Cryptography
(java.crypto.*).
Is there any original SSO in any of these bridging
interfaces, since many were designed to do exactly what Oracle is claiming that
google is trying to do:
Get to market by leveraging someone else's work!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
In particular, under the Court’s construction, a reference could be
symbolic as
to some data and numeric as to other data. Indeed, so long as the
reference is
symbolic as to some data, then it “identifies data by a name other
than the
numeric memory location of the data” and the reference is a symbolic
reference,
regardless of whether it identifies other data by
location.
References point to ONE thing. _ONE_ You can't put
two different values in the same location in memory! It's either
the numeric
memory location of the data or it is not. Oracle is asking for jury
instructions saying that up is down.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:19 PM EDT |
If you follow Oracle demonstration, JME is not compatible with JSE: There are
API in JME which are not in JSE and not all the JSE API are in
JME.
However see what Sun has written (2006) in the official CDC doc:
With respect to APIs in the java.* packages, it is a subset of
the Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition (J2SE), version 1.4.2. Applications
written to these APIs in Personal Profile 1.1.2 are therefore
upward-compatible to J2SE 1.4.2.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
The dust hasn't settled yet, but when it does we will have a scenario something
like this.
Oracle has lost:
- several patents revoked by USPTO
- a lot of money on lawyers
- credibility and goodwill with many Java developers
Oracle has gained:
- ?
Google has lost:
- a lot of money on lawyers
- pocket change for infringing 9 lines of RangeCheck code
Google has gained:
- confidence that Android can be defended when necessary
And the winner is - the lawyers. Almost all the money that will change hands
will go to them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MAD - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- not MAD - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 04:58 AM EDT
- not MAD - Authored by: Wol on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 09:59 AM EDT
- not MAD - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 09:52 PM EDT
- Oracle tried for MAD.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
A very clever man invents the toggle wibbler, it is a device that society has
been crying out for, toggles can now be wibbled at a rate of 60 toggles a minute
rather than 60 minutes per toggle. He gets a patent and grants licences.
Another man sees the toggle wibbler and sees that by ungroobing the flange
werter toggles can be wibbled at a rate of 120 a minute, he gets a patent and
grants licences.
A third man sees the improved toggle wibbler and sees that a left handed bonk
knocker could get production up to 150 toggles a minute, he gets his patent and
grants licences, thus far all is working as it should but now a large toggle
wibbling company starts to feel concerned, people are making money from wibbling
and it isn't them so they pay an engineer to come up with their own machine. The
design cannot use the original patented technology so it is slow and
inefficient, it can only manage 30 toggles a minute, the bosses speak to a
clever lawyer who says
Rather than a toggle wibbler why do you not create a tiggle wobbler, this will
not be covered by the patent, further we can patent it ourselves and since we
are rich we can go to court and force all toggle wibbling companies to pay a
licence fee to us.
"But there is no such thing as tiggle wobbling""
"There will be after I write the patent"
"aren't patents supposed to reveal useful inventions to the world at
large?"
"Not the way I write them"
So now tiggle wobbling has been patented
Another large toggle wibbling concern is, well, concerned. They speak to their
engineers saying we need defensive patents, the engineers invent, lawyer weave
spells and taggle waggling, teggle wuggling and tyggle wyggling are patented,
but the patent office spots a pattern and they have to modify the final patent
to say "on Tuesdays"
Eventually a toggle wiggler is bought by a litigious lunatic who goes to court
and ...
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 07:40 AM EDT |
The Judge will follow the European Court's lead and decide that API's are not
copyrightable. He is NOT going to put US copyright law at odds with European
copyright law...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
Oracle SQLite Mobile Client runs cross platform on:
- Android 1.5 (based
on Android/Harmony)
- RIM 5.0 (based on JME)
- Win32 (JRE
5.0)
- Windows Mobile 2003 (using IBMJ9 or CtErne JDK
4.1)
- Windows Mobile 5 (using IBMJ9 or CtErne JDK 4.1)
- Windows
Mobile 6 (using IBMJ9 or CtErne JDK 4.1)
The user guide is here:
Oracle
SQLite Mobile Client Guide
How large is the common java library shared by
the different versions.
How does Android fragment Java again?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
Anytime Oracle want they can implement J2(?)E on android, there is nothing
stopping them and then Java WORA will also include android.
Nothing Android has done in anyway affects the current java
environment/ecosystem for programmers.
If Oracle did port J2?E to Android, Java programmers would be happy, Android
programmers would also carry on just like they are, though I do wonder just how
much interest was generated in using Android NDK.
An API is a concept, an SSO of a concept is a just a bigger more complicated
concept, but a concept nonetheless.
Concept: A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or
occurrences. The Spec, The Source, The Library, The Application are each
specific instances and are protected as such.
The concept is not protected. The Jury instructions were specific, concepts are
not covered.
It really shouldn't be that hard for Judge Alsup to have come to that
conclusion.
Software patents exist because the languages of technology and law are
incompatible and lawyers are able to twist the meaning to suit themselves. What
is needed is some plain speaking on the language and terms.
Start with concepts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|