Authored by: pem on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT |
Yeah, I put it (and my observations on it) under newspicks,
above.
Pretty slimy.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
"This is not a guy who takes on frivolous cases."
Guess he doesn't remember the whole SCO debacle ...
-Ish[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ionic on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
"David Boies is one of the handful of smartest lawyers in the world, “the
Tiger Woods of the legal profession.”"
and we all saw how Tiger Woods eventually fell from grace due to his dubious
moral compass...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
2005 presentation to Google’s top managers that said Google
“must”
take a license from Sun
Not quite sure how he attaches so much
importance to
that. Even if it definitively happened, it doesn't make the
statement true. I can insist that my employer "must" give me
a 20,000% raise,
but it doesn't mean I get my beelions.
Google got lucky here
and Schmidt’s feet weren’t held to the
fire, but I’m not willing to forget that
moment.
Right, okay... I think we can see where this article is
going, and how little weight will be applied to the merits
of the
case.
[Inane rant about how godly Boies is]...
If David Boies
thinks Oracle has a strong enough case to
justify spending years of his life
on, I’m inclined to take
that position
seriously.
Translation: if a lawyer I worship says something,
I take it
as a sign I don't need to think for myself.
There
are a lot of issues in the case, not least that a lot
of Java is open source
and that the copyright status of APIs
is unclear, but fundamentally it seems
reasonable for the
owner of Java to expect to profit when others profit from
Java.
Translation: as a former litigator, I know full well
that
the law is important, but I will ignore it completely based
on my belief
that Oracle is fundamentally entitled to
something based on buying Sun without
due diligence.
If we don’t protect inventions and creativity,
people won’t
invent and create.
Translation: I haven't really
thought this through, but if I
come out with good soundbytes people may not
notice.
After all, if all the Android technology was so easily
derived from open source code, why did Google need to hire
“a load of Sun
engineers who worked on Java?”
Translation: I haven't actually
read any of the trial
reports, nor ever used either Java or Android. I have no
understanding of either the technology or the law
surrounding it, and no idea
what went into the Android
development process. People should still respect my
opinion
because I am a "former litigator".
How could anyone come to
the conclusion that Android was
easily derived from anything? There's a massive
massive
amount of original work in the project which doesn't come
from any
other source.
I am not a former litigator, nor a current one, but I
have seen plenty of trash articles in my time, and that
ticks all the
boxes. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
Let them keep fudding away. All it will do is turn future
java programmers to some other language because they will
realize how mean and two-faced Oracle is. Sun said great!
Oracle bought Sun. Oracle says we are going to sue the pants
of you. Would YOU use java after witnessing that kind of
behaviour? I won't. It is a good thing Dalvic is not java.
I wouldn't be surprised if Google starts to migrate from
their java-like subset to some other more welcoming language. I bet that would
really put the frosting on
Ellison's cake!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
I'm tired of reading about the "Google “must” take a license from Sun"
bit and how that means that Google is in the wrong.
Wasn't it an engineer, not a lawyer, who said that?
If this is so relevant to the trial - isn't Schwartz's blog even more so? And
that is more legally binding, IMHO.
But again, IANAL.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
> If David Boies thinks Oracle has a strong enough case to
> justify spending years of his life on, I’m inclined to
> take that position seriously.
If Oracle thought they had a strong enough case then they wouldn't have needed
“the Tiger Woods of the legal profession.” to present it. Anyway what does that
mean, is he accusing Boies of sleeping around ?
As for Boises spending years of his life, it was all at several hundred dollars
per hour, who cares whether the case is 'strong enough' at that rate. Losing
just means more billing of Oracle for the appeals.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|