It's an echo of their commentary on Sony v. Connectix, a case which
provided
Judge Alsup with much guidance. Oracle's commentary overlooked the
factor of
source copying which was the real point about Sony v.
Connectix.
Interoperability, though, has no bearing on the point
regarding replication
of Packages, Classes, Methods, and Signatures, which
Alsup said were methods
of control and not a taxonomy. Alsup also
described Oracle's
fragmentation/incompatibility argument as suggesting that
Oracle's problem
with Google is that it hadn't copied all 166 of the packages.
The Judge also
cited a case where partial replication was upheld as
non-infringing.
So, no, not for investors. Oracle stock hasn't been
rising and falling with
their successes or failures in the Court. (Indeed, they
seem to doing quite well
in a couple of other current cases.) It's the last
straw and BSF/MF will grasp at it.
I don't think I'd want Larry Ellison
as a boss or as the fellow across
from me in a bargaining table, but he's not
stupid. He really should understand
that this is not Ragnarok: it was an
attempt to monetize Oracle's rights in java
and it didn't work. No point in
throwing good money after bad. The opinion is
very clear that it does not seek
to establish general case law, just apply current
case law to specific facts.
It does not say there was no way Google could
infringe
Oracle's copyrights in
java, it says it didn't happen here. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|