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
Interesting question for Judge Alsup | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Interoperability is irrelevant here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 12:34 PM EDT
I'd agree, anyway Android is designed to run on a phone/pad

Interoperability is only an issue if they want to call it java and thats been
the sticking point with this law suit from day one, its not Java so they don't
need a licence.

Also suing over a few test files and nine lines of code which they never wrote
in the 1st place has never made any sense and the Judge must have the patience
of a saint to listen to the spin and vapuor eminating from the Oracle camp.

Maybe Boise was trying to wind him up so he could get a mis-trial when he asked
for infrigers profits.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interoperability is irrelevant here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
The OP was to elicit a response that would help me better understand, for my own
interest actually.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interoperability is irrelevant here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT

I've been thinking that fragmentation was never a starter, either as a legal or practical argument. As the Android platform has developed, the real fragmentation issue is not incompatibility with J2SE programs, but the devices and OEM and carrier resistance to post-purchase upgrades.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interesting question for Judge Alsup
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT

Question:

    When did "not allowed to fragment" become a protectable element under Copyright Law?
I really don't recall that being identified anywhere. Of course, I'm not a member of the Legal profession so I could easily be missing something.

On the defense side of things, I certainly recall "allowed for purposes of interacting/intercommunicating" as a concept though.

And interacting/intercommunicating certainly does not equate to the technical concept of fragmentation or lack thereof.

RAS

[ 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 )