|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
It's actually simpler than that: Atticus Finch was *lying*. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
And when that brief later gets entered into the court record as a redacted
document? Perhaps due to mentioning things that were redacted in other documents
they wanted people to know about but could not mention in court? Hmmm, Oracle
tried just about every other dirty trick to sway the masses, so I'm rather
surprised that they missed that one.
But that is all about stock prices,
not the final case outcome. Their problem is that its not the media shills or
their readers that deliberate the case. Its the jury, and the jury is not
listening to shills, by the order of a Court mandate. Besides, the jury already
has those same documents in unredacted form from the official record, why would
they want or need to listen to any unnecessary spin and drivel from Oracle?
Hmmm. Almost makes me almost wish I were on that jury!
--- DRM - As a
"solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically'
infeasible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
Being "trained in the art" - at least, I assume you are when you notice all
the holes in Oracle's argument - you are able to see the differences in what
makes truly logical sense and what's just spun yarn.
Now... a Jury devoid
of any "trained in the art"... it's not as easy for them to tell which side is
spinning the yarn. That doesn't mean they can't tell. Just that it's not so
easy.
Most of us here wouldn't have been in deliberations for such a
lenghty time I'd be willing to wager. Either on the Copyright or Patent
infringement questions. But then, I'd also have to honestly say:
I'm not
sure I can take what I've learned elsewhere, completely forget it, and in an
unbiased fashion examine the evidence, arguments and Legal theory
presented.
Just the concept of applying a copyright to an API raises huge
alarms. If I'm coding on an Oracle database and I utilize their to_number
function... did I just infringe their copyrights in their eyes? Does that also
mean that they will lay claim to the work I created wherein I used their
functions by claiming it's a derivative work?
The Legal argument
surrounding API's in this case make one exceedingly leary about Oracle. It's
like having a rattlesnake threaten to bite you - after it rapidly tried to bite
someone else several times. After that point, you're going to:
A: Keep a
very close eye on it!
and
B: Keep your distance - the more the
better!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|