Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
WOOT! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eric76 on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
Great news. I think it would have been very surprising had he decided the other
way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
Sanity prevails! Can't wait to read Judge Alsup's ruling on this issue. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ewilts on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
I can't wait to see how thrilled the jurors are to read about this. What a
waste of their time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
I'm mesmerized by this message. I have read it several times already.
Brilliant!
Thanks Judge Alsup!
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: om1er on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
Everyone, including Oracle, would have lost if he decided the other way.
---
March 23, 2010 - Judgement day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
Ruling at scribd [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
http://pt.scribd.com/zdnetrachel/d/95477548-Oracle-v-Google-
Order-Regarding-Copyrightability-of-APIs[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kaemaril on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
So how long do you suppose Oracle will wait before filing the appeal? Five
minutes? Ten? :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
Looking at the way Judge Alsup has handled matters until now, there may even be
a good chance that his order will survive appeal. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RPN on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
This is excellent news. Except for Oracle but I never loose any sleep over it
anyway.
Thanks PJ and Mark for all your work keeping on top of the case for us all and
to all the reporters from the court who have been wonderful. And the community
of course who are an education in themselves for me.
Richard.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wonderful! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- Dumb question. - Authored by: Mikkel on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
Just before the Summary of Ruling section:
Counsel on both sides
have supplied excellent briefing and the Court wishes to recognize their
extraordinary effort and to thank counsel, including those behind the scenes
burning the midnight oil in law libraries, for their
assistance.
What a classy guy Judge Alsup is! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
Or perhaps he will talk about the inevitable appeals... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
The ruling relies on 102(b):
But the names are more than just names
-- they are symbols in a command structure wherein the commands take the
form
java.package.Class.method()
Each command calls into action a
pre-assigned function. The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements
but it is also a precise command structure -- a utilitarian and functional set
of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure
is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act
and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is
necesary for interoperability.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
“this circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual
facts,
as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the
court
of appeals.”[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
Page 12. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Many people who program thought it should be simple and obvious that API's
should not be copyright-able.
However, I believe now that Judge Alsup
knew this and also understood that the simple and obvious is sometimes very
difficult to deal with in Court. His decision could have effects on the entire
software industry and far beyond. With this decision, he is enforcing what was
common practice for decades in more than just Software.
I hope his
decision is resistant to challenge. It certainly looks like he took the time to
make it so. This could be case law that is studied and referred to for years to
come.
This is a good day for justice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
In 2008, the Java API had 166 “packages,”
broken into more than
six hundred “classes,”all broken into
over six thousand “methods.” This is very
close to saying
the Java API had166 “folders” (packages), all including over
six hundred pre-written programs (classes) to carryout a
total of over six
thousand subroutines (methods). Google
replicated the exact names andexact
functions of virtually
all of these 37 packages but, as stated, took care to
use
different code to implement the six thousand-plus
subroutines (methods)
and six-hundred-plus classes.
I sure hope a few muddled
details don't invalidate the
ruling! First he speaks of "the Java API had 166
“packages,”
", then says "Google replicated the exact names and exact
functions of virtually all of these 37 packages",
without precedent for
these 37 packages. Then goes on
to say "took care to use different code
to implement the
six thousand-plus subroutines (methods) and
six-hundred-
plus classes.", but the that refers to all of Java, not
just
the part Google used. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:26 PM EDT |
Not a patent case? All about copyright?
Ooooooh KAYY!!!!
All about NOTHING![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:26 PM EDT |
Excellent. Thanks PJ. Thanks for your wonderful work posting
us the updates and analysis during the whole case. I was sick
of every news paper and so called 'tech journalists' quoting
the one self proclaimed 'patent expert'.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GriffMG on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
I just took a few minutes to read his ruling.
By gum that is a piece of work, I can't see anything that would give Oracle any
wriggle room in appeal. Mind you, this is the same legal team that argued over
the APA in SCO/Novell...
I want to thank Judge Alsup for putting the effort in and I hope it sticks.
---
Keep B-) ing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
If you must discuss his doubtless hilarious analysis of why Judge Alsup is just
so wrong, oh so sadly wrong, please put it here so that we can keep it in one
steaming pile.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:43 PM EDT |
Based on a single implementation, Oracle would bypass the entire patent scheme
and claim ownership of any and all ways to carry out methods for 95 years -
without any vetting by the copyright office. This order holds that under the
Copyright Act, no matter how creative or imaginative a Java method specification
may be, the entire world is entitled to use the same method specification
(inputs,
outputs, parameters) so long as the line-by-line implementation are different.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
Article link
Quote:
Oracle is
committed to the protection of Java as both a valuable development
platform and
a valuable intellectual property asset. It will vigorously pursue an
appeal of
this decision in order to maintain that protection and to continue to
support
the broader Java community of over 9 million developers and
countless law
abiding enterprises. Google's implementation of the accused
APIs is not a free
pass, since a license has always been required for an
implementation of the
Java Specification. And the court's reliance on
"interoperability" ignores the
undisputed fact that Google deliberately
eliminated interoperability between
Android and all other Java platforms.
Google's implementation intentionally
fragmented Java and broke the "write
once, run anywhere" promise. This ruling,
if permitted to stand, would
undermine the protection for innovation and
invention in the United States
and make it far more difficult to defend
intellectual property rights against
companies anywhere in the world that
simply takes them as their own.
They genuinely seem to be
under the impression that fragmentation is a
copyright issue. I'm not sure what
else the judge could have done to make
that point clearer - other than ordering
the execution of their counsel and
board. Baffling.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
This same decision was taken in Germany about two weeks ago. In effect, the
German judge indicated that calling conventions were not copyrightable. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
Seriously wonderful news! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
Great ruling. :)
But I can't get whether the judge has ruled on rangeCheck(),
de minimis ... and any statutory damages or otherwise? He
talks about it in this ruling, but there seems to be no
decision...
So will the ruling on rangeCheck() and any associated damages
come later?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
Does this mean there will be a share holder lawsuit against Oracle's officers
for mis-leading the share holders? They did say something about this being 6
Billion dollars. Sounds like they were trying to jack up the share price over,
really, nothing.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
Just finished reading the opinion; intermittently taking a 1 hour nap - it's
long. Alsup's write-up is very thorough, hard seeing Oracle winning any appeals.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|