|
Authored by: tknarr on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
You'll notice, though, that unlike in this case that juror didn't go on to
say that they ignored the judge's instructions because they didn't want limits
on openness. There's a major difference between having an opinion vs. ruling
contrary to the law because of your opinion. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
And after that, your post goes so far off in the weeds, it's not even funny.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
If you still think Google was in the wrong over Acer/Aliyun, you really need to
read these - Acer would have gotten into serious copyright violation trouble if
it had gone ahead with Aliyun:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-confirmed-to-be-distrib
uting-pirated-android-apps-many-from-another-pirate-site/
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/technology/google-alibaba-acer-android-aliyun-ch
ina-292615.html[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
I admire your sense of fairness at taking on the job of Devils Advocate, so
I
award you two out of ten for that alone. But I'm subtracting 9 marks though
for
you your lack of a constructing a convincing augment. That leaves you
with...
Oh, I think I'm repeating myself - must be the radishes. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
That's the difference between "open source" and "free"
software. "Open source" means if you get your grubby hands on the
source, you can do whatever you want with it. "Free" means that, in
addition, anyone who gives you binary has to give you source also.
For both Java and Android, there are restrictions are on whether you can use the
TRADEMARK. These have nothing to do with whether the SOURCE is open, shut, free,
or non-free.
Android isn't "Free" Software. It's "Open Source". Someday
"Android", like "Unix", may refer to several competing
implementations: but right now "Android" just means "the source
you get from Google." And that source is "open".
Java isn't software at all. It's a language. Implementations of Java may be
free, open, or neither. The Sun/Oracle implementation is partly free, partly
non-open.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
"Limits on openness" is a reporters summation of a jurors
summation of the attitude of the tech savy jurors. All put
into a tweet which has severe limts on the number of
characters used. I take it mean that the tech savy jurors
were disinclined to accept that there were any limits on
what use of Java specifications could be made outside of
actual use of the tradmark. Something experts testified that
Sun mot only indicated publicly but intended.
This compared to Hogan who pushed a theory, "if runs on a
different processor it is not prior art", something which he
has freely admitted he told other jurors, and of all the
jurors making statements, that they looked to him for
guidance on patent validity issues.
As for the wholesale copying of nine lines of code, even the
judge who said it happened said it was not a significant
amount.
So next time I suggest that you read something other then
tweets, and oh yeah get over your butthurt about the Oracle
vs Google verdict.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Has a devotee been stirred up? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 07:02 PM EDT |
We're just discussing various aspects of this case, what apparently went legally
wrong and what Samsung is doing about it.
You, on the other hand, seem to be very, very "butthurt" about a
completely different case. Why don't you go to that discussion and provide
information about what Apple is legally doing about this butthurt of yours.
Oh, what's that? There is no legal basis of your butthurt? Well, that's why
you are whining on this thread, isn't it?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JonCB on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
On the assumption that you're not just a troll (just
because you have
strange ideas) i'm going try to answer your
points.
On the surface, you
perhaps have an argument here. I
certainly wasn't motivated to look deeper
because the
verdict in Oracle-V-Google(hereafter OvG) WAS satisfying.
Having
said that I only had motivation to look deeper in
Apple-V-Samsung(AvS) because
PJ (who has at least some
knowledge of the legal system remember) smelt a rat.
So lets
dig beneath the surface together and see what we can see.
If i
read your points right, you're arguing that the
parallel "bad calls" from OvG
are :-
- "more tech savvy jurors were less likely to go for
limits
on openness. Ie they were pro google". This shouldn't
have been a factor in
their decision.
- Remember, this jury was told to assume APIs were
copyrightable and "was split 9-3 for google on copyright
fair use"[3]!
Wholesale copying is fair use?!
- Not to mention the fact that they
thought the line-for-
line duplication of rangeCheck was not copying, which even
the Judge had to overturn.(subsequently corrected to the 9
test
files)
So to take these deeper and in order.
On the subject
of "Tech Savvy Jurors" I spoke on in one
of my earlier comments. In the
link you provided, that gave more
detail about the
actual comment, the full quote was "Thompson did suggest
there was a general sense among some jurors that Oracle's
intellectual
property claims might not be in the public's
best interest." Looking at the
Jury Instructions in OvG (#26
for those playing at home), A fundamental aim of
"Fair Use"
is to allow the use of "any copyrighted work in a reasonable
way
... if it would advance the public interest". So that
says to me(and i feel
that many who would qualify for "tech
savvy" would see it the same way) that
there are two
questions, "Was the copying reasonable?" and "Would allowing
the
copying advance the public interest?", where answering
no on either would
invalidate fair use (bearing in mind that
the burden to prove that is on the
defense). We know that
the defense raised the argument that copying the SSO of
a
dynamically generated library of documentation that is built
from comments
on code that MUST take the form it does is
definately within the public
interest and blocking it is
not. This means that debating whether Oracle's
intellectual
property claims with respect to the SSO was in the public
interest is very much on topic and to the letter and spirit
of the
instructions.
On your second point, I think you're assuming things
about
Google's argument that is building a strawman in your
head. Google's legal
argument is perhaps best summarised as
"the API could not possibly have been
any different
therefore following legal precedent is is, by definition,
fair
use". When we say "wholesale copying" yu get this image
of all these pages of
code that are identical, when everyone
agreed that a) the code was different
and b) (iirc) the text
of the comments was similar only in so far as it was
describing the same things. As such what was "up for grabs"
in terms of
"wholesale copying" was merely the signature
lines i.e. "what's the name of the
method, what are its
inputs and what are its outputs". This will generally
equate
to less than 10% of any worthwhile file (gut feel, i haven't
checked
this. Assumes 1 line for signature compared to 2
lines for method brackets, 3
lines for method comment(both
of which are pretty much minimum given Sun's code
formatting
standards and on average 4 lines + of code)). Having said
that,
wholesale copying doesn't come into the argument at
all. The question is (as
above) is it reasonable and in the
public interest for Google to copy the SSO
of a standardised
library and that is not as rediculous as you make it out to
be.
Finally on your third point... This is probably your
strongest
point (mostly because it was in the end backed up
by the Judge). Google's
argument, that the Jury obviously
agreed with, is that the "work as a whole"
MUST be the
entirety of Java (that is what they registered after all)
and that
9 files that have little to no value that were
placed in the system by a third
party who was specifically
told not to do so, and they removed the files as
soon as it
was pointed out, is (in my opinion) the very definition of a
trifle, and the law does not concern itself with trifles.
The nature of Judge
Alsup's judgement was that the law
suggests that the "work as a whole" should
instead be the
file which was copied in its entirety. Note however that
this
DOES NOT appear in the jury instructions, instead the
instructions always talk
about "work as a whole" without
further definition (at least as far as i could
find). Thus
the jury were within their rights to give credence to
Google's
argument but if they had've been informed that the
work should be considered
the file that would have been
problematic
Compare the answers to these
three points to the
accusations levelled at Foreman Hogan's jury in
AvS.
- They were told to read the jury instructions carefully.
They
admitted they gave them little to no attention ("they
just bogged them down" i
believe was the quote)
- They were told that their own experience is
irrelevant,
the only thing that matters is the evidence given at trial
and
their jury instructions. They admitted to folowing
Hogan's "experience with
patents"
- They were told that the only valid theories of
recompense are
"lost profits" and "reasonable royalty". They
said they wanted to "send a
message" with a punitive
award
These are clear violations of what
they were asked to do.
Not kinda-if-you-look-at-them-right violations but
direct
contradictions of their instructions... which they might
have known if
they had read them. Like they were asked to.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|