|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
I'm actually on Oracle's side here more than Oracle itself is: with regard to
copyrightability, I consider "work as a whole" the smallest containing
functional unit that makes independent sense, and that would likely be just the
rangeCheck function itself, or at the very most the module to which it
(apparently) is private.
So yes, I'd call that infringement. The quality of the function, and the amount
of "damages" or "profits" that Oracle wants to see riding on
it, however, is plainly ridiculous. And since it is so plainly ridiculous, I
would, were I the judge, not deny Google recovering their expenses from Oracle
only based on _that_ infringement, particularly when looking at the
circumstances under which it got into the code and out again that don't indicate
premeditation of Google proper, and at best carelessness by the programmer
responsible.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- i hereby copyright "in" - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Work as a whole - probably arrays.java or package it is contained in - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Work as a whole - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- Work as a whole - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- Oh dear, give me a break! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 05:12 PM EDT
- Not copyrightable by any sane observer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- Work as a whole - Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- Work as a whole - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT
- Work as a whole - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:06 AM EDT
- Work as a whole - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT
- irrelevant - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 12:25 PM EDT
|
Authored by: pem on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
Rangecheck actually decreases performance.
The entire purpose
of rangecheck is to look out for programmer mistakes and throw an exception
(typically aborting the program, unless a higher level function has coded an
exception handler for that particular error) when certain classes of programmer
errors occur.
If Android is calling rangecheck 2600 times on boot, that's
probably completely wasted CPU cycles, because those errors that
rangecheck might be able to catch probably don't exist in the code -- if they
did, then rangecheck would have notified upper level code of the problem, the
upper level code probably would have aborted program execution, the system would
have given a traceback, and the programmer would have fixed it. All would then
be copacetic, except rangecheck is still there, checking the exact same thing
over and over, on every boot.
There are significant philosophical
programming debates about whether library functions should protect themselves
from the bad behavior of the programmers who write code that calls them. These
pretty much boil down to efficiency vs. ease of debugging and checking
correctness. The inclusion and use of rangecheck falls squarely in the
"debugging and correctness are much more important than efficiency camp" so for
Oracle to argue that the inclusion of rangecheck somehow makes Android run
faster is beyond the pale, and for google to fail to point this out indicates
that the lawyers and programmers aren't communicating effectively.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
A few more losses for Oracle and it will have to change it's
name to Didn't See It Coming!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 03:33 PM 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: feldegast on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 03:34 PM 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 Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 03:35 PM 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 | # ]
|
- Tough talk for Samsung's lawyers, but no sanctions - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Apple Helps Chinese Government Censor Apps - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 08:42 PM EDT
- Does Cybercrime Really Cost $1 Trillion? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 08:47 PM EDT
- Whoops - it has come out that the timekeeper for the event was a 15 year old British volunteer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 09:00 PM EDT
- Waay OT - 6yr old boy blows up building - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 02:21 AM EDT
- Apple allowed hackers to access user's iCloud Account - Authored by: jplatt39 on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 08:36 AM EDT
- First Reuters' websites now Reuters tweets: - Authored by: jplatt39 on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- Is Elsevier charging authors to make items "Open Access", then charging to read them? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- Obama app is creepy says biased article - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 09:07 PM EDT
- Green telephone icons - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 04:56 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
I am a newcomer to this issue - is there something
extremely clever about the copied code? If it saves
some cycles because it is more clever than just having 3 "if"
statements, then wouldn't its importance be measured by the
number of cycles saved, and some estimate of the value of
cycles?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
For transcriptions of the documents on the Comes v. MS trial
(see link above).
Thank you!
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
The fact that a function is called a lot could just mean it was
badly coded, not qualitatively significant,
The fact that
rangeCheck is called a lot has nothing to do with whether or not it is trivial.
The word "the" is used a lot in English, but it's still a trivial word. Its
frequency of use doesn't mean that it forms a significant part of the actual
conversation.
But Professor Mitchell actually testified that
“a good high school programmer or graduate student, if told exactly what was
needed, could write the code.” RT 1316:24-25 (Mitchell) (emphasis added). In
fact, the rangeCheck “code has some subtlety”
Any student who
could not figure out how to write a range check function could not reasonably
expect to pass even an introductory programming course. Anyone who suggests that
something as basic as a range check function requires any great skill is either
unqualified to comment on the matter (i.e. doesn't even have introductory level
programming skill), or is simply lying through his teeth.
This would
be like saying that it takes incredible skill and knowledge for a trial lawyer
to know how to say "good morning" to a judge and that Oracle's lawyers must have
stolen their briefs from Google because such a thing is beyond their own
abilities. In fact however, it's merely something that an lawyer in their line
of business is expected to know how to do, and the fact that they all do it more
or less the same way is "trivial".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Triviality - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- Triviality - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 08:38 AM EDT
- Triviality - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT
- Functionality - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 04 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
You have produced a long winded explanation of existing law, and Oracle/Google
have argued about this over many lines of text.
In practice this is 9 lines of code and the functionality is dictated by the
interface (API).
It would take me about 5 minutes to write this and probably 20 minutes to write
code that tests it works properly.
Is it rearly worth arguing about? There is no "IP" here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 01:14 AM EDT |
If rangeCheck does not fall below the bar of De Minimis then it's a near
certainty that no other function ever will. The reason is that if its operation
were any simpler then it wouldn't be appropriate to use a function at all.
Judge Alsup really needs to take a step back and stop getting entwined in the
web of technicalities that Oracle are weaving, because they're reducing De
Minimis to total impotency.
If after careful consideration he decides that the De Minimis concept might as
well be killed off in Computing, fine (although that would very likely get
overturned on appeal), but he shouldn't let Oracle filibuster him into dropping
the De Minimis bar so low that it's practically on the ground. This could have
severe ramifications for the future.
At the risk of mixing metaphors, he needs to draw a line in the sand.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 01:42 AM EDT |
If rangecheck has anything to do with the heart of your program then I can't
imagine just how trivial your program must be. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 03:18 AM EDT |
Assume for the moment that the author of the RangeCheck function that appears in
Android first appeared in other code that the author wrote, and that he re-used
that code (substantially unchanged) from that earlier work.
Would this disqualify the RangeCheck function from being considered copyrighted
within the Java library entirely?
Or would it merely disqualify it from being considered copyrightable except as a
portion of the larger work?
Consider as an analogy the opening phrase "It was a dark and stormy
night". In its original work, it might have been copyrighted or
copyrightable. But as part of a Bulwer-Lytton contest entry, it might only be
considered copyrightable as a portion of the entire work.
To what extent is copyright limited or expanded by context?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 03:34 AM EDT |
Reads like propaganda: "header files are functional. Where is the
creativity?:
When you have to work with a bad header file, you will wish for some creativity
on the author's side.
It is easy to brush over the effort that goes into expressing the right
interface in the right way.
It takes intelligence, experience and creativity too to recognize quality and
acknowledge the potential for screw-ups,
So please rethink.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that the United
States copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public
performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to
it. -
Wikipedia
So it might be that Oracle is not as crazy as you all
think... right.
de minimis be damned [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|