|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
Let's not forget that it was his own EU courts that declared *ALL* APIs
non-copyright-able...
So where does that leave him standing? As usual, in his own personal
dementia-laden cloud.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ah! The Morning After... ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:41 AM EDT
- Ah! The Morning After... ~pj - Authored by: al_dunsmuir on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- Nah, Müller's career is (sadly) assured - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:05 PM EDT
- Ah! The Morning After... ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- Sadly... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT
- Sadly... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- I'm 6'1" - Authored by: kawabago on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:54 PM EDT
- I'm 6'1" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:58 PM EDT
- I'm 6'1" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT
- I'm 6'1" - Authored by: charlie Turner on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- I'm 6'1" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT
- I'm 6'1" - Authored by: PJ on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- I'm 6'1" - Authored by: eachus on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 08:02 PM EDT
- not only does he know more than you and I - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:40 PM EDT
|
Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
As I said in another thread, Flo is a rather reliable Oracle.
You can almost always get the right answer after hearing his
words. If it's not on the decisions of those who pay him, he
is consistently and systematically wrong ;)
If Flo said that tomorrow the sun would rise in the east, I
would prepare myself to watch a spectacular sunrise on the
west...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
Someone tell me if I am wrong, but I'm beginning to sense the whiff of
potential class-action against M$ here.
M$ has been extorting
$5-$15 for each Android smartphone from major makers such as Samsung -
no doubt passing on the buck (literally) to end users.
I suspect the patents
asserted are all bogus (c'mon, FAT filesystem
patents? honestly?)
In addition, here are some clear facts that show
M$ is in the wrong on this:
I rest my
case.
Is there potential for a class-action suit against M$ here?
I
mean $5-$15 patent royalties per smartphone??? That's 15% of the price
of the smartphone right there!!! That's clearly extortion! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Any info on Linux Kernel patents.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT
- Don't know about class action... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:13 AM EDT
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- Prosecution of M$ behaviour unlikely. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- don't forget what happened to B&N's filings - Authored by: designerfx on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- Hey! - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- Googlerola (or Motogoogle) - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:08 PM EDT
- How long do you think it will be? - Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- A guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- A guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- A guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 04:50 AM EDT
- That's why - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 08:11 PM EDT
- A guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 07:15 AM EDT
- A guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- Define "Craked BIOS" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 07:12 AM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
Thank you for your support
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
The Soviets system was an especially corrupt form of totalitarianism run for the
party bosses, by the party bosses.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Soviet != Communist - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- Soviet != Communist - Authored by: vadim on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- Soviet != Communist - Authored by: Patrick Corrigan on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- Where/when did the judge say anything like this? - Authored by: BJ on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- While correct.... for the average person - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- While correct.... for the average person - Authored by: BJ on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- And yet... with that response.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 01:38 AM EDT
- Soviet != Communist - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT
|
Authored by: swmcd on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
15 years ago, Paul Krugman wrote
Who's Buying Whom?
about
bought-and-paid-for experts. The field was economics, not law, but the dynamics
are similar.
He offers this insight
Rather than simply using
their money to buy influence directly, special interests pursue the longer-term
strategy of funding plausible-sounding people and institutions that supply
intellectual rationales for the policies they want. We're not talking conspiracy
theory here: It's all quite legal, and more or less aboveboard. [...]
Since
everyone who matters presumably knows all about [this], why does their advice
still get taken? The answer, I believe, is an odd but very Washingtonian
combination of cynicism and credulity. Of course the Milliken Men get funded
because their views happen to be convenient for certain interest groups--but
doesn't everyone? And regardless of who supports them, these guys have a lot of
expertise to offer, don't they?
Both the cynicism and the credulity reflect
ignorance about the world beyond the Beltway. Most economists do not get paid to
express particular views. [...] And the Milliken Men do not, in fact, have a lot
of expertise to offer. On the contrary, looking closely at their work [...]
quickly reveals these particular hired guns as The Gang That Couldn't Think
Straight. [...] A Milliken Man, in short, isn't a real expert; he just plays one
on television.
I don't think that Washington realizes how bad a bargain it
gets when it takes advice from the men and institutions Milliken has supported.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
He's not a rodent, but is definitely on the side of egg eaters...
He's not a werewolf, but does prefer his meat on the raw side...
He's not Godzilla, but has definitely been monstrous to my side...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
Mueller is not even a lawyer, not even in his native Germany,
and he "corrects" the judge.
The arrogance of his latest piece
is astounding.
This is why I wish he had a comment section. He talks like he
knows
something about the law, but if you know even a little bit, you find what
appears to be errors all the time. And he frequently makes grand statement of
his opinion that cannot be supported by law, like PJ illustrated above.
It
should be a rule of thumb for people who obtain their information from
the
internet that blogs (or any conveyance of information really) without
comment
sections should not be trusted. If you don't have faith enough in your
work to
let the public make a comment other readers can read, your opinion
should be
simply considered not trustworthy, absent some actual credential.
And even
then, comments would be preferred. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: frankieh on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
I was just recently reading back through previous FM adventures in LaLa land and
I remembered that he was a big supporter of the idea that PJ was either paid by
IBM or actually was IBM.
In addition to predicting big wins for SCO, he also sprouted big about how Turbo
Hercules was going to own IBM in the end. (Didn't that turn out just like he
predicted? :-))
I must ask, can anyone think of an occasion where he has actually been right? I
ask because nothing is springing to my mind. (Then again right is subjective in
his mind, from his employers point of view, he has been saying the right
things.)
Does he think IBM is paying PJ to cover GooglevOracle? Perhaps he thinks she is
being leased by Google? Or perhaps a time share arrangement? PJ, do you time
share?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
The sad part is...this decision probably helps Oracle. They were
trying, really hard, to shoot themselves in the foot, but the Judge wasn't
having any of it, and came to the best decision for both
companies.
Now all the people who want to program for Android are
still going to have to learn Java, which increases the pool of people who know
Java, which makes it easier for Oracle to sell Java.
--- Do not meddle
in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: swmcd on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
I think this case is a big success for Oracle.
They have established the
principle that when they come to you demanding license fees for
- invalid
patents that you don't infringe
- copyrights on things that can't be
copyrighted
you either
OR
- spend many years
and many millions defending yourself in court
They are now well positioned
to exact such fees from anyone smaller than Google.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
What I can't understand is why such reputable news
organizations such as the BBC and NPR keep using "experts"
like Mueller, Enderle and DiDio.
In general, I have a great deal of respect for the BBC's
reporting, but knowing their reliance on these experts for
this matter makes me really question their other reporting.
-- nyarlathotep[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
PJ said:
And Mr. Mueller knows more than Judge Alsup?
Really? I mean, *really*?!? How could that ever be the case? Who should *you*
believe is more likely to get it right?
I feel appeals to
authority are best avoided. While credibility and competence are valid issues,
it's best to use supporting facts to illustrate why one side is more credible
and/or competent. For example, Mueller stated that "Sega v. Accolade was a fair
use case", so you could have responded with the
following:
Judge Alsup clearly has a better handle on Sega
Enters., Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. than Mr. Mueller. The case was not exclusively
about fair use. It also dealt with issues of copyrightability under Section
102(b) of the Copyright Act.
Reasonable people can usually
figure out for themselves if someone is an idiot when presented with the facts.
Faith in humanity trumps vitriol.
- Matthew Raymond [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
It is time for a computer literate to be elevated. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
When dogs bark and growl, you whack'em on the head, tell
them to shut up. I
think Judge Alsup did just that to all the
would be IP experts. A very
resounding whack on the head.
Now you're hearing that whimper as the dog
slinks off,
tail between legs.
PJ. Thank's for the good reporting and
the excellent bio
of Judge Alsup. I didn't know he was so distinguished.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
Is there any reason to believe that this ruling would not apply to Apache's
version of Java as well?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
[In Darl McBride voice]
But we spent millions on lawyers! Surely that must mean Google infringed! Why
else would we spend such a ridiculous sum? Do we look like we're stupid?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
He every exchanges tweets with him... Guess who was wrong? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
Would it be legal for Google to indulge in some payback? Do
a
few things like
challenge some Oracle database patents that
have nothing to do with
Android.
Or throw a few programmers into making Postgress a
more
competitive product.
Or starting a service company that offered per-seat
postgress support? They would probably make money to go
with their revenge.
Call it GoogleGress.
I am not sure if doing such payback would be legal, but
it
sure would be fun, and it would send a message load and
clear,
Don't mess
with us. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
People my age (baby-boomer) remember Douglas. From
Wikipedia:
In
1975, a Time article called Douglas "the most
doctrinaire and committed civil
libertarian ever to sit on
the court."
And he was an
environmentalist. He spent time on the Board
of Directors of the Sierra Club
and hiked the entire
Appalachian Trail.
He was just the type that the Tea
Partiers of the day
hated.
(My apologies if this violates the Groklaw rules
about
staying away from politics. PJ please feel free to remove
this comment
or reply with a rebuke.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
The coverage Groklaw supplies.
Is tremendous.
Thank You.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
Since FM gleefully quoted the judge on Google's Soviet style negotioations --
here's what I've come up with:
Searched for 'soviet' OR 'sovjet';
see groklaw search for 'soviet' or 'sovjet'
Found 5
items.
First 4 results are quotes from the 5th; that 5th is the actual order
by Judge Alsup here: order by Judge Alsup.
From this, I am quoting paragraph 9.
fully here:
9. GOOGLE'S SOVIET-STYLE
NEGOTIATION.
Google emphasizes that negotiations between Sun and Google
regarding
a Java license for the mobile space "never got anywhere near
the
billion-dollar level." Google recounts that "Google rejected
a
proposal made by Sun to pay Sun $60 million over three years
plus
an additional amount up to $25 million per year in revenue
sharing"
and suggests that the total value of this offer -- "at most, a
figure
around $100 million" -- should serve as a ceiling for the
reasonable
royalty reached in any hypothetical negotiation (Br. 19-20). In
other
words, since Google rejected the offer, the rejected offer must
serve
as a ceiling for the hypothetical negotiation, or so Google
argues.
This would be a Soviet-style negotiation: "What's mine is mine
and
what's yours is negotiable." The test is not what the
infringer
actually bargained for but what reasonable parties would
have
negotiated. Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to
roll
the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair
price. Moreover,
by law, the hypothetical negotiation presupposes
infringement and validity
of the claims in suit, whereas back in 2006
Google was entitled to a
discount based upon the risks of litigation
over validity and
non-infringement. Google is wrong on this criticism.
I
think the quote by FM is making an old connotation of a judge's order seem
like the present portee of said judge's later ruling (i.e. presenting a
mooted point as being actual):
1. he is saying 'This would be a
Soviet-style negotiation' , the operative
word here being
'would'.
2. in his next sentence "Google may have simply been
brazen...", the
operative word is 'may'.
3. 'Soviet style'
was to characterize a Google position on damages in
which infringement had
been proven (and under which presupposition the
hypothetical negotiations
took place). Since the judge just ruled exactly
the opposite, namely that
infringement did NOT take place, the 'Soviet style'
tactic from a
hypothetical becomes moot.
FM is being purposely
tendentious in using
that quote unannotated, and a fortiori in bad faith when making
it
appear these words are resounding unaltered by more recent developments
(legal facts), unmooted, from the judge's mouth.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
The court’s decision upholds the principle that open and
interoperable computer languages form an essential basis for software
development. It’s a good day for collaboration and innovation.
Uh,
what? Maybe Google's speaker should have checked back with his company's
excellent legal department before fantasizing what this case was about. This is
not even remotely related.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LouS on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
It seems to me that much of the FUD we are hearing is based on the attempt
to confuse the API as interface specification with the implementation of the
interface. Anyone else get that impression?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: charlie Turner on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
Mom and Grandma used to tell me that you can tell a lot about people by the
company they keep. pj said:"I think you can tell a lot about a company by
the people that sing their song, actually." I would bet Mom and Grandma
would rephrase that to: "You can tell a lot about a company by the people
they keep." Funny how that saying works both ways. And, how the older I
get, the more Mom and Grandma were right all along. :)!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
“As a general rule, even simple patent cases can cost a few
million dollars,” said Doody. “This is probably ten times
the size of the
average patent case. $50 million in legal
fees for both sides [is a
reasonable guess].”
...
And appeals seem inevitable.
Both companies have suggested
that they are far from finished and Doody
predicts that
Oracle will try and drive the case all the way to the
Supreme
Court.
If this comes to pass, the estimated $50
million price tag
will have only covered the first few games of a 7-game World
Series.
Renowned software developer Linus Torvalds
decried the
situation by saying Oracle would “pay lawyers to take it to
the
next level of idiocy.”
Article also notes the amount spent
hiring an ethically
challenged blogger to spin the case. No prizes for guessing
who that might be ;)
It's a shame in a way that Oracle won't likely
end up paying
Google's legal fees. That would make it impossible to spin
as
anything other than crushing and humiliating defeat
(which is hard enough as it
is, but some people are still
trying...) It does seem a shame that frivolous
and baseless
claims can end up costing a defendant millions of dollars to
defend.
GigaOM
article [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 03:50 AM EDT |
A 3-0 win for Google...
Yes that’s my take as well :-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 06:33 AM EDT |
"That's what is so refreshing about the Free Software and Open Source
community. They are straight-forwardly truthful."
...as you should know very well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonomous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
I felt this ruling deserved a thorough read through and I am glad I have, as it
makes very interesting reading.
1st off, Oracle will have problems refuting the logic of the ruling.
They will be better off trying to get it thrown out on some procedural
technicality, if at all.
2nd thing to strike me was Bois's strategy:
Ambush is Key. He comes up with an esoteric, but potentially valid, new reading
of the law and bases his case on this.
As we saw initially, you can't see how he can be serious as he is doing all he
can not to tell you the heart of his argument.
Hence the famous lack of specificity.
This is deliberate, if he is to be successful with his ambush and spring his new
theory on the defence and the court, later is better.
So in this case the defence is building arguments to counter the upfront copying
allegations, not seeing the API copying thrust until late in the day.
Also looking at the previous cases explained by the Judge as being on point,
there _was_ potentially some wiggle room between the case law. Bois strategy is
not illogical, high stakes yes, but interesting nevertheless.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
Remember when the first IBM PC's came out? IBM thought to make the machine work,
they would patent "Basic" and the BIOS. Oracle claims they are
protecting their hard work to promote innovation. No, they are only protecting a
revenue stream and if anyone thinks different, well, I think therapy is in
order. Back to IBM. Others built machines by using their own BIOS and other
computer languages. That created "clones", now known mainly as
"Wintel" machines. Look at innovation today on that front. We are not
stuck with almost no choices (Apple or IBM) and pricing. We have many platforms
to choose from. Different operating systems and much more.
We have evolved from specific CPU's and languages to many options. Software
patents and copyrights stifle innovation. We all know that if that barrier is
removed, then great things will happen. It's Ok if Microsoft doesn't want to
show the world how they did something. But don't stop anyone that can improve on
that something. It will benefit the creator.
I look at this in a medical fashion. Why patent penicillin when it could save
someone (I believe it was never patented). The point I want to make is why
create a barrier to something than can benefit all mankind just to make a buck.
You'll make your buck by delivering the product first and best. This does 2
things; 1 it promotes innovation, 2 it keeps that company on their toes. You
can't live by what you created years ago, you must improve.
Think about this a second. Microsoft would not be where they are today without
innovation. Had not the "gang of nine" (Compaq, Zenith, HP... others)
fought IBM, we would have to deal with IBM pricing, smiler to Apple. Apple would
have won (probably since they had the best interface... business...? that's
another story). The bottom line is innovation would have been dead, and the
consumer would have paid dearly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM vs the world - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT
- IBM vs the world - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
Early on in the case he asked some questions that caught my eye. It was
clear that he wasn't just you average judge from those questions, which
were needle sharp, and put both litigants on the defensive.
And then he takes the time to learn how to program in Java!
A real neat guy.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
Speaking of Florian Mueller, he has the following to say regarding Judge Alsup's
ruling on the APIs:
"The Federal Circuit, which has more expertise in intellectual property
than any single district court, is now going to look at this."
Really? The Federal Circuit ordinarly does not receive appeals regarding
rulings on copyrights - an appeal of Judge Alsup's ruling would ordinarily go to
the Ninth Circuit. The Federal Circuit does receive appeals regarding patents,
and Oracle may well appeal the denial of its JMOL on its patent claims. Which
leads to the question - would the appeal of the copyright ruling go "along
for the ride" to the Federal Circuit, or would Oracle file two different
appeals, one to the Ninth, one to the Federal?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
Think for a moment, if somebody like Linus tells you:
"I will not sue you for X", do you believe him?
If a big company like Sun tells you: "I will not sue you
for X", do you believe it? Would you worry about somebody
like Oracle taking it over and the promises just go away?
IMO one of the best achievements of open software is the
"climate" of high trust. People say what they mean, and
mean what they say, and everything is done in simple English
with no fine print.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "Everyone, including Linus, told him he was all wet" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 02:41 PM EDT
- "Everyone, including Linus, told him he was all wet" - Authored by: BJ on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- "Everyone, including Linus, told him he was all wet" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- "Everyone, including Linus, told him he was all wet" - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT
- "Everyone, including Linus, told him he was all wet" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT
- You are aware that Oracle sued Google because.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- "Everyone, including Linus, told him he was all wet" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 05:07 AM EDT
- "Everyone, including Linus, told him he was all wet" - Authored by: AntiFUD on Sunday, June 03 2012 @ 05:37 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
I was wondering whats next for Java if Oracle appeals the case and the decision
is confirmed and widened by a higher court. In this situation the World+Dog now
knows they are safe to re-use and transform Java's API's. In the past people
have been so scared of patent and other IP claims on Java that no incompatible
Java implementations have really taken off. Sun/Oracle's position has recently
been that you can implement compatible Java and we will protect you from our IP
lawyers greedy hands. However the implied threat here could be very much
blunted if the Judge's decision is upheld.
So In theory a new JCP could be formed to create a new improved Java like
specification that suits the Goal of the new founders of this organization.
There are many players like IBM that may be interested in having the power to
innovate without one of there main competitors (Oracle) having veto on all
decisions. They can even start with OpenJDK code base and re-use. They could
take this GPLv2 with classpath code and upgrade it to GPLv3 if they wanted. In
theory someone could make an alternative licensed or even propriety based
re-implementation of the new specification and possibly charge for support or
use licensing of this. Note that any of this would not be called 'Java' or
'JavaSE' but it would be a new platform that uses the Java Programming language
and shares much of the original Core API but maybe reworked with less bloat and
the ability to fix broken parts of Java that remain for JavaSE compatibility.
Another interesting idea would be to take the Open source Android/Dalvik code
and specification and make a new fork of this that can be used to Develop cross
platform apps just like JavaSE is used for now. So then code written for
Android/Dalvik can be easily ported to this new unified platform and run on
PC/Mac/Linux/Web.
Anyway just some ideas. Most of this probably won't happen but Oracle may still
be worried about things like this affecting their remaining Java revenues. This
may be why they will keep on fighting to keep everyone else wary of touching
Java but also how they could shoot them selves in the foot in the end.
Michael[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|