|
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
...
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
The Java Application Programming Interface ("API") is not a work of
imaginative fiction, however Oracle's lawsuit IS![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
Hey,
great stuff here, but I would - if I were you - stick to the convention of
having
the body text be your words, and Mueller's text be quotations; you risk lazy
journalists putting Florian's words in your mouth because they are in black and
unindented.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Saturday, July 06 2013 @ 10:40 PM EDT |
I am wondering just how far Oracle and Boies can go
in 'creatively mis-stating' what Google has written
before some judge somewhere will take them to task for it?
Is there any limit to Oracle's greed and Boies willingness
to twist words beyond all recognition in an effort to
fraudulently collect from Google and the public?
It makes me wish that someone would bring suit against
Oracle for THEIR use of other peoples APIs. It would
be rich to have Oracle have to argue one way in one
case, but completely differently in another case.
So, where or when will Boies behaviour ever catch up
with him? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: frankieh on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 12:09 AM EDT |
There has to be a thousand groklaw members with blogs and
websites and other online apps.
If groklaw started referring to Florian as "a blogger paid by
Microsoft and Oracle" and linked to a groklaw page detailing
the details of his employment with these companies and all of
us with blogs, websites and social apps linked to that page
with the same tagline, Florian Mueller, a blogger paid by
Microsoft and Oracle... We could make it so that people
couldn't Google him without learning that his opinions appear
to be fully bought and paid for. I imagine that Microsoft
would creatively edit their search results to stop that
showing up, but who cares? Smart people dont use bing unless
they have to anyway.
I really think we should do this, its only a matter of time
till someone starts hinting that PJ is secretly paid by
Google... We might as well point out that in Florian's case it
isn't really secret, it just isn't mentioned much by him.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 01:38 AM EDT |
I am afraid cynical propaganda is exactly what it is.
Groklaw stands out for basing its opinion on facts and using those clear, cold
facts to pierce the hot air balloons floated by those for whom facts get in the
way of making money.
It's the phenomenon called 'framing', wherein one side uses words laden with
connotations - preferably negative ones - which then becomes little packets of
information with which to steer the listener towards drawing the conclusions
beneficial to the speaker.
It is a dirty political trick and it works well in the court of public opinion,
where it's extreme version is called 'spin' or 'damage control'.
It is important for Oracle to project themselves in the right (artificial) light
to their peers, on the assumption that those same peers have little time to read
through dry court papers or fact-laden tomes to arrive at a balanced view of the
issue in question.
"Give me the short version", as they say in the movies.
Yes, it is cynical propaganda and it is deliberate deception. Just like
advertising. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 04:16 AM EDT |
One of the reasons for this is the great integrity you have shown year in and
year out. The
Wikipedia
says:
Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values,
methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity
is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions.
Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that integrity
regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding
apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their
beliefs.
This matches my own internal definition. Unfortunately,
integrity seems like a scarce resource nowadays which is one of the reasons why
you are such a precious jewel. You don't fight fire with fire or lies with lies.
You tell the truth, as you see it, despite the slings and arrows of outrageous
slander and lies that reverberate around the Internet.
--- In a time of
universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-- George Orwell
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JonCB on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 05:10 AM EDT |
While doing the HTML reformatting, i came across a real
pearler.
" But Google does not mean that there is some standard-
setting organization that sets out voluntary disclosure
standards (there isn't)"
Yeah. There's ABSOLUTELY nothing like JCP (which is "the
mechanism for developing standard technical specifications
for Java technology.")... Oh...
Best part is that Judge Alsup's Ruling specifically mentions
the JCP as a standards process.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 06:06 AM EDT |
What Oracle says: Google twists the meaning of ordinary words to
obfuscate their true import
What FossPatents says:By
contrast, it's pretty clear now where Oracle says the law draws the line:
expressive software code, whether declaring or not, is protectable. Expression
means creativity, which in turn requires choice -- choice on the part of who
writes the original code, not the one deciding to copy some or all of it
later.
What the dictionary
says:
Expression
3: the communication (in speech or
writing) of your beliefs or opinions; "expressions of good will"; "he helped me
find verbal expression for my ideas"; "the idea was immediate but the verbalism
took hours" [syn: expression, {verbal expression}, verbalism]
What the law says (17 USC § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In
general): (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this
title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a
machine or device.Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying
words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4)
pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural
works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound
recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does
copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea,
procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work.
So you cannot copyright
written or spoken expression that communicates your beliefs, opinions, ideas,
procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or
discoveries, regardless of the form in which they are described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work.
When FossPatents say that
expressive software code is protectable, it is wrong, both legally and as a
matter of the English language. Software is, by and large, an expression of the
methods of operation of the computer in order to enact the ideas of the author.
'Expressive software' is a meaningless phrase. Expressive does not mean creative
according to the dictionary, so it is, again, wrong in this assertion. 'His
ideas were powerfully expressed in his writings' does not confirm copyrightable
subject matter. Only if the writer uses expression which is an original work of
authorship is his work protected by copyright law.
So, come on Oracle,
which is the original work of authorship to be found in RangeCheck on which the
law offers copyright protection? To give you a helping hand, lines with just ';'
in them are not original. They are an essential constituent of many computing
languages. Anything already forming part of the Java language is not an original
work of authorship by the RangeCheck author. Any names, words or short phrases
are not, by law, an original work of authorship receiving copyright protection.
So, how many original lines of the RangeCheck program constitute the original
work of authorship which you say cannot be 'de minimus' under copyright law and
are worth beelions?
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: roxyb on Sunday, July 07 2013 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
As normal languages, like English and Swedish, can't be
copyrightable (to my
knowledge, correct me if I am wrong),
why should a computer language like Java
or Python be
allowed copyright?
I can understand an implementation of
the same language
(like python.exe or java.exe) being subject to copyright, as
well as a program written in the language itself (like a
Harry Potter novell
or Oracle Financials), but not the
structure and syntax of the same language
(like verbs,
adverbs, standard libraries or common idioms).
Otherwise
I'll copyright the Swedish language and ask for
compensation for the usage of
English from the users of the
same language, as it has Swedish loan-words (I'll
disregard
the reverse, to be in common with the Oracle position).
Isn't
this the fundamental question that needs to be
addressed, before going forward?
It may be off-topic... --- I'm Still Standing...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mvs_tomm on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 01:09 AM EDT |
If I remember correctly, an attorney is an officer of the court. As such, an
attorney is considered to be under oath when submitting a brief. If that is the
case, couldn't an attorney be subject to prosecution for perjury if a brief is
untruthful?
Of course, an attorney is expected to try to interpret the law so as to benefit
the client. However, shouldn't misquoting the brief submitted by the opposition
be considered perjury?
Tom Marchant[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 04:20 AM EDT |
Usually you can see at least a few anonymous trolls in the top level of the
comments after every article...yet they're strangely missing here.
Perhaps, as with trolls of the norse tradition, sunlight is lethal to them.
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|