|
Authored by: Rubberman on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 01:22 AM EDT |
I've been a serious Oracle developer since the 1980's. No
longer. Their position in this case has made me totally anti-
Oracle. I'll no longer support their software in any way,
shape, or form. I have to use Java for my work, but we are
now utilizing OpenJDK and not Oracle's proprietary version.
Also, we are using open source DBMS software. Most of our new
work is based on Hadoop/MapReduce and such.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj - Authored by: Nivag on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:23 AM EDT
- Department of redundancy department department - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Oracle's Wants "Danages for Comments"?!? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- One has to wonder if Oracle considered the backlash. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 05:48 PM EDT
|
Authored by: maroberts on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:32 AM EDT |
I eagerly await Googles reply to this.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:41 AM EDT |
This may be more of a Constitutional question, but if I
remember correctly,a jury may ignore the law when reaching
it's decision if it serves justice. There were articles in
the quick picks about a gentleman being arrested for handing
out pamphlets outside a courthouse explaining this issue.
I'm curious as to how this works in the context of a JMOL.
If the jury uses their constitutionally given right to
ignore the law and then losing party decides to go with a
50(b) motion, where does the judge stand on it. Whilst the
jury have ignored the law, it is something they are allowed,
even mandated, to do, but as a matter of law they have not
been reasonable.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT |
I was in a conversation over the weekend with a senior SW architect from a long
time Java using company. It turns out Oracle is changing the interpretation of
what falls under what as far as use goes. Their yearly license bill went up
over 20X from what SUN was charging. A rewrite in a new language and target DB
is now under way. It will only cost 7 years of licensing at the new rates. He
said he is going to enjoy the next licensing meeting with the Oracle reps. The
rewrite will be done and in production by then. LOL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
Is Oracle using this to try trap the judge into making mistakes so that they can
use it for their appeal?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj - Authored by: darrellb on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:45 AM EDT
- The REAL mistake here - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:59 AM EDT
- Aye but - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:25 PM EDT
- The club game... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT
- Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj - Authored by: PJ on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT
- Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT
- Oracle's Motion for JMOL, as text -- Oracle Asks to Win Everything It Lost, and More, More, More ~pj - Authored by: jez_f on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 07:31 AM EDT
- Oracle's Motion for JMOL - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT
- Can the judge dismiss the case with prejudice and sanction Oracle for frivolous arguments? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
|
Authored by: sproggit on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 03:49 AM EDT |
Please post any corrections you may have in the title of your reply to this
post, in the form
Mistkae -> Mistake
Thank you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 04:00 AM EDT |
This looks exactly like the "second bite at every apple" thing that
BS&F did in SCO.
Is this some sort of brain damage that this firm has, or is there some precedent
for most law suits getting double-dips at their whole case that I have never
heard of before?
I thought the -trial- preserved all the appellate rights by its very existence
and that an appeal cannot bring new information in (facts or claims anyway) by
definition.
Can the court start to "discount" the motion practice and
presentations of a law firm that consistently tries to get a do-over beyond the
scope of the first "do"?
Seriously, is there no thing in the system designed to limit this waste of
taxpayer/court money and time?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 04:06 AM EDT |
He thinks he is going to beat IBM in Servers with his
already obsolete Sun hardware chips. (check the Stock price
of IBM and compare it to Oracle... )
He thinks he is going to beat SAP in ERP, something SAP has
been doing since the 70's and is very deeply entrenched in.
Actually SAP is going to beat him by moving out Oracle
databases from under their ERP systems by replacing it with
their own Hana.
He thinks he can beat Google even though he has already
lost? Isen't that beginning to look bizarre ...
He also thinks he is going to beat HP, he may actually have
a chance there since they have (in part) already defeated
themselves... we'll see, but I don't think that will really
happen.
Anything I forgot to mention?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:33 AM EDT |
:-)
---
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 | # ]
|
- UEFI and Secure Boot - less Freedom is No Freedom - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT
- Apple vs Motorola dismissed with prejudice - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT
- How Bad Laws Happen - Authored by: sproggit on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- Has Microsoft opened the door to the Linux desktop? - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: greed on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- I Love my *REAL* keyboard and my dual large screens! (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Linux doesn't move, it's inanimate - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 01:00 AM EDT
- Five to Ten Minute Boot Time??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 02:20 AM EDT
- Why should Linux move to the desktop? - Authored by: globularity on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:26 AM EDT
- ACTA - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- ACTA - Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 08:00 AM EDT
- ACTA - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- Microsoft Passes On Motorola Settlement for Patent Lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT
- Infinite-capacity wireless vortex beams carry 2.5 terabits per second - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT
- NAD (National Association of the Deaf) sues Netflix - Authored by: qrider70 on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- Microsoft partners inspired Surface design - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT
- RBS/NatWest Fail continues - Authored by: Chromatix on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 02:29 AM EDT
- Ominous Copyright advice, MAFIAA will love it - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT
- Eben Moglen going strong strong strong! - Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- 8 months after Jobs' death Apple admits its own mortality - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- The hogs are gathering at the trough. - Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- About patents from left field - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- "...many paralegals I know can do the job of an attorney better than some attorneys" - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Simply Ignore Any Rejection Of ACTA By European Parliament - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 07:56 PM EDT
- Anyone heard of Sierra Club v. Orange County? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT
- Flame could have taken one man-week to develop - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 10:33 PM EDT
- Slashdotted? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- Microsoft loses EU argument - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 04:41 AM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
:-D
---
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 | # ]
|
- MegaUpload scoreboard: Momentum is with Kim DotCom - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- Scratching the Surface (or not...) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT
- News Pick "Capble of Test" - Authored by: dio gratia on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT
- "stealing music" - Authored by: globularity on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 07:17 AM EDT
- "stealing music" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- "stealing music" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- Microsoft unveiled Surface after seeing partners' designs, says analyst - Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- Microsoft buys Yammer - Authored by: complex_number on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 09:35 AM EDT
- Papers Please! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 10:51 AM EDT
- Papers Please! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Papers Please! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Papers Please! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 07:32 PM EDT
- Google Motorola Win in Apple IPhone Patent Case Gets Review - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 11:37 AM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
:-O
---
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: SilverWave on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:48 AM EDT |
Well as long as they are being paid the lawyers will keep dancing.
---
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 Monday, June 25 2012 @ 09:47 AM EDT |
In SCO vs Novell, when Novell did not raise a timely appeal on certain topics
from the original trial because the trial had otherwise gone their way, they
lost their ability to raise those same topics in the second trial, because they
didn't appeal motions they lost.
Does Google face the same type of issues, and should they be filing 50a motions
on things like the jury instructions on the ability to copyright the SSO, so
those don't become assumed correct if the case ever does get remanded?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
Oracle's motion should be ruled invalid as a matter of law,
as no reasonable attorney could have filed it. ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
With all respect to PJ, Oracle did not ask for everything...
More BSF Appeal reasoning:
</Sarcasm>
We are BSF, No Reasonable Law/Contract would be interpreted different than what
we say it is, so the Judge is wrong because he disagreed with BSF! (please note
same argument goes to Court of Appeals/Supreme Court)
BSF/Oracle must get a new trail because The Judge allowed BSF to choose an
unreasonable jury!
Oracle/BSF deserves a new trial because all of Google's witness's disagreed with
BSF/Oracle!
Although we initially agreed with the Wording on the Patents, ie Symbolic
references, agreeing with the wording did not work in our favor. So we,
BSF/Oracle, want a do over with the full agreement that any wording Google uses
as a defense is wrong and only the wording/definition BSF chooses is right, and
BSF can change the meaning of any word at any time as long as it benefits
Oracle/BSF!
Oracle deserves a do over, other wise how can we expect to make money to buy
more Hawaii Islands. (Ooops that's an Ellison reason for appeal)
Oracle deserves a do over other wise how can we expect to stay in business
without profiting from other people's work because we keep alienating our
existing customers.
Oracle/BSF deserves a new trail because Goggle's defense was better than our
arguments. The Judge must invalidate any and all of Google's defenses and give
BSF/Oracle a new trail where Google cannot defend themselves.
<Sarcasm/>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AH1 on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
I think I have finally figured this out. There is an anonymous consultant out
there who is pushing a brand new business model to Tech Companies who have been
slowly losing market share. Promising to make these to make Billions without
even trying. The plan goes something like this:
1. Locate a struggling tech company who owns a legacy technology that is worth
something.
2. Buy that company.
3. Hire BSF to file a lawsuit against a prominent tech company with deep pockets
alleging infringement on the precious IP/Copyrights/Patents that were acquired.
4. Issue a high profile press release announcing the law suit, being certain to
invite the "usual suspects" from the Tech Media.
5. Hint to your current customers that you have no problems suing them as well
if they attempt to find alternatives to your products.
6. Do your best to defer/delay the start of trial all the while smearing the
name of your opponent in the press.
7. Go to trial hoping that you can confuse a jury into believing that the story
you are telling is accurate.
8. If/when the trial does not go your way, have BSF file appeals hinting that
the judge/jury were wrong. At the same time get your pet members of the media
to smear the judge/jury in the press.
9. If the appeal succeeds repeat steps 6-8. Otherwise move on to your next
target until you run out of money. Once you are almost out of money pay
yourselves big bonuses, declare bankruptcy, sell what is left of your valuable
assets off to your cronies, pass along your marginal IP/Patents to the highest
bidding troll, lay off your staff then let the bankruptcy court divvy up the
empty hulk of what used to be your company to the creditors. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
Ipwatchdog.com has posted a new post which alleges that Google copied 9 files
plus at least 3,000 lines of code. The analysis was done by Safe-Corp:
http://www.safe-corp.biz/Oracle-Google
Unless a new trial is granted this is moot. However I wonder if it is true.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 10:51 AM EDT |
Oracle says that there is no evidence in the record of Android being
"compatible" with Java, and points to statements by various experts
that the bytecode and entry points would need to be changed to make a Java
program work with Android.
But they leave out a key fact:
Google has a dozen or so files that are "virtually identical" to
corresponding Java code, that are in Android.
The accused (and found infringed) TimSort code in Android is compatible with
Java, since the identical code behaves identically in the Java environment.
This is one example where Java code runs on Android completely unchanged. And
this is exactly what Google was trying to accomplish when they made Android
"compatible".
--Joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
In their (presumably upcoming) reply motion, here are
some of the things
Google could suggest that the Judge
rules:
- The issue of
infringement of the SSO as ruled on by
jury and judge, included infringement of
said SSO by both
the Android code and the Android documentation, as the SSO
is
the same for both code and its documentation when using
the standard JavaDoc
tool (as both Oracle and Google did).
Thus the omission of the SSO from the
separate jury
question of "documentation infringement", simply indicates
that
this question was about the claim that Google's
documentation infringed in ways
other than the SSO.
Similarly, the omission of the SSO from the separate
jury
questions of "code infringement", simply indicates that
these questions
were about the claims that Google's code
infringed in ways other than SSO. The
jury ruled that to
the extent copyright subsists in the SSO of the code
and/or
documentation, Google is guilty but may have equitable
defenses (the jury
hung on equitable defenses for SSO
infringement). Thus if this courts ruling on
the issue of
copyright on SSO was to be reversed and a new jury were to
repeat
the present jury's ruling and further deny Google's
equitable defenses, then
this would be a ruling of guilt
on both the SSO of the code and the SSO of
the
documentation. Thus this court did not err when it did not
include the
issue of SSO infringement in the jury questions
about non-SSO
infringement.
- (Alternative to the above, at the judges choice): It is
clear from the arguments and evidence presented by both
sides in this case
that the allegedly infringed work of
"Java 1.5 platform and class library"
contains 3 distinct
aspects, each of which defendant Google was accused of
infringing: A. The documentation text as available for
download from
plaintiffs web site at the relevant time. B.
The actual implementation code as
available in various forms
from plaintiff under various conditions. C. The SSO
of the
code and documentation which represents the API design
decisions of
plaintiff and/or its suppliers. Accordingly
this court asked the jury to rule
separately as trier of
fact on each of those 3 aspects, and the jury found
infringement of C (but hung on the equitable defenses),
found infringement of
specifically accused parts of B (said
parts being chosen by plaintiff in its
claims) and did not
find infringement of A. Thus when this court did not
include category C in its jury questions about category A
and B, it did not
err and the plaintiff was not prejudiced
by a jury verdict which was entirely
in its favor.
- As to issues that were not fully briefed at trial and
were not ruled definitely on, such as various equitable
defenses (such as
estoppel, latches, copyright validity) and
various additional accusations (such
as certain English
language comments), the lack of full briefing on this was
done in the interest of a speedy trial and neither side
should be prejudiced
by their omission. Thus these issues
may be reopened by either side if there
is a retrial and
shall not be treated as conceded by either party except for
the specific promises made before trial and affirmed by
rulings during the
first 2 days of the present trial.
- This court stands by and does not
reverse its ruling as
a matter of law that copyright does not subsist in the
Selection, Sequence and Organization of the code and
documentation in the 37
API packages, no matter who may or
may not hold a related copyright
registration.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|