Oh, and I don't really care what the Oracle Mouthpiece called Fosspatents has to say about the jury decision in Oracle V Google. Here's the real deal: https://plus.google.com/112648813199640203443/posts/ULQuzCSCiZE - who's the expert now? ;-) cc
8 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 38 previous comments
- I believe, from the recounts that I have read so far, that is the one getting the right interpretation here. The jury has apparently reached consensus that 9 lines of code can be considered infringing, provided that the Judge finds that API can be copyrightable subject and without a consensus on the fair use defence.
For having an infringement, both checks must be in: the interference in somebody else's copyright and the absence of a right of use. I would be disturbed if a judge ruled that API are a copyrightable subject, but I could live with it if there was a footnote saying that even if it's copyrighted, this is still a fair use case.
In whichever direction this court will decide, though, the first authoritative word will surely be that of the Appellate judge, unless the parties find a settlement.May 8, 2012
- There are different procedural paths to getting the fair use question answered. Google's own proposal, to declare a mistrial, would result in a retrial before a new jury The Google and Groklaw line, adopted by , is to claim that the infringement finding is limited to 9 lines of code, but there was an infringement finding for 400 classes and many thousands of methods and there was no finding of fair use, a defense Google has to prove and that the judge can easily rule on without a jury, as both parties actually claim in their Rule 50 motions.May 8, 2012
- My limited reading of question 1A is that the judge has asked the jury to say whether – provided that API are copyrightable – Google has infringed Oracle's copyright on the overall structure, sequence and organization of copyrighted works. This is the question the jury has answered. It is troublesome that the question has been asked at all, but it's a stool standing on one leg so far.
I am little interested in the procedural avenues, unless they bring to a ruling that is a binding precedent to the main question.
I only note that what precognized, and I found entirely feasible, is still entirely feasible. But that is only to inflate our ego, it's not the important matter.May 8, 2012
- "... on some important issues my views are not shared by a majority of FOSS community members." You can say that again but it does not change the way Microsoft misrepresented you or the way you continue to continue to shill for them.
The Microsoft press widely quoted you as a free software expert, legal expert, and member of the community, a "developer." . It was your ability to pass as such that Microsoft paid you for. I can dig up references but that would insult every reader's memory. Enemies of free software will continue to quote you as a member of the free software community as long as the community keeps quiet, so I'm happy to see Jan refute both your opinion and your roll.
Is there any reason to think we won't find a collection of email like MoG's when the next big courtroom spill of email happens? That you have "had hardly any contact with W.E" does not convince me that your relationship with Microsoft is any different from hers. Big companies generally treat people the same way and Microsoft talking points don't change much no matter how cleverly they are spun.
I mention MoG because you had the nerve to recycle MoG's discredited accusations against PJ. You did that back when you were still hiding your Microsoft money. http://techrights.org/2010/08/06/record-straight-on-groklaw-ibm/ and again, http://techrights.org/2011/04/11/revisionism-and-distortion-re-gl/
That's not as nasty as pushing Microsoft's old standby, FRAND. I'd hate to see the EU accept software patents because some talking heads convinced a decision makers that FRAND was OK. That's why I'm happy that the FSF and FSFE got together to call FRAND a fraud.May 8, 2012
- The thing is you extrapolate where I stick to what I see and can understand. Things I cannot safely decide I simply do not decide. So please stop pushing me in a direction I simply refuse to go.
Fact is that the main point in this case is copyright and not patents. And with the copyright part Oracle has failed to convince the jury on the simple part (copyright infringement on documenation) and only got a clear ACK on 9 lines that are not really relevant wrt damages calculation as judge Alsup has explicitly said yesterday.
Oracle also failed to convince the jury that Google had absolutely no reason to belive it wouldn't need a license.
Google this is in a position that looks far better compared the doomsday speculations you made months ago.
And that is something I would like to point out to make sure our readers can put tings in perspective.May 8, 2012
- here please a little example of how"maliciously censors reasonable comment that doesn't adhere to its party line..."
https://plus.google.com/u/0/101776115605794605263/posts/JawiVwRXqypMay 9, 2012