Shared publicly  - 
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: - who's the expert now? ;-) cc +Fabian Scherschel
Carlo “Kappa” Piana's profile photoWill Hill's profile photoJan Wildeboer's profile photoAnton Tikhonov's profile photo
The fact of the matter is that the jury has not reached a unanimous decision on fair use. That's different from finding in Google's favor.
+Jan Wildeboer Come on. Groklaw is at least as partisan as you say Mr. Müller is. I don't agree with his methods either but keep it sane, OK?
For sure. And it shows how tough the Fair Use is to decide. Now its up to Alsup to decide if API is copyrightable or not. And as I said the EU decision plays a role here as both US and EU are TRIPS members. The precedent set by the EU court of justice in their binding decision for the UK high court will not go unnoticed.
I still fail to see how a local US court has to care about the EU verdict.
TRIPS agreement. WIPO rules. Both EU and US are members. Thus they respect the findings of eachother. Guess why Alsup asked Oracle and Google to comment on the EU decision? Guess why Alsup reserved the right to decide on the copyrightability of API?
+Jan Wildeboer If you say because of TRIPS the EU ruling is binding, so how about U.S. rulings on software patents being binding for Europe?
I never said "binding", +Florian Mueller. Read again. I said "respect the findings" for this specific case. And I said that this decision of the EU CoJ will have influence on this case. And despite people claiming not, it did. Alsup specifically asked Google and Oracle to submit their opinions. I never mentioned patents.
+Jan Wildeboer OK, so then let's talk about one judicial system "respecting" the other system's rulings. If this applies to copyright, why not to patents? Or are you cherrypicking?
Sounds to me like the next higher court could just go "pfft" and disregard whatever the EU has said.
+Florian Mueller I am not cherrypicking. The SAS v WPL case had nothing to do with patents AFAICS. Alsup asked Google and Oracle on their stance wrt to the EU CoJ decision limited to API and copyright, and not on patents. I am limiting myself to what is relevant, not what it might possibly mean. In this specific case patents simply don't play a role. And as copyright and patents are fundamnetally different regimes I wouldn't dare to mix them.
+Jan Wildeboer You are cherrypicking. You say that because of TRIPS, the ECJ copyright ruling should be "respected", but TRIPS also includes patents, and from your suggestion would follow that EU courts have to "respect" US rulings on software (or business method) patents.
Copyright is a globally assigned right to the author of a piece. Patents have to be filled in the different jurisdictions to be able to hold up. In Europe patents can be different from country to country.
+Florian Mueller which part of "Patents did not play a role in this specific case of the EU CoJ decision on SAS v WPL" do you fail to understand?

This case is about copyright and licenses. TRIPS covers copyright and licenses and trademarks and patents. So this case is limited to two of the four regimes. To extrapolate from copyright and licenses to patents is something I simply do not do as it si not relevant in this specific case.
A chart for +Fabian Scherschel

yes, yes - partisan
yes, no - paid
no, yes - consistent
no, yes - accurate
no, yes - open to feedback

Worth reading?
+Will Hill Any hard evidence to back the claim up that Groklaw isn't being funded? Also: what does "paid" even mean in this context? Are you really this naive?
No, Fabian, what's required in that case is hard evidence that Groklaw is on someone's payroll. I don't think you will find it, despite a lot of smearing by other Microsoft mouthpieces.
So what you're saying is that you have no evidence and are just pulling stuff out of your arse? Here's a handy list for you:

Actual evidence, random bullshit lists by condescending people
OK, here's what happened the last time Microsoft was in court and email to another mouthpiece/journalist was spilled.
I doubt that there's anything special about Florian or that Microsoft has changed it's business methods, so we can assume that he's taking the same level of direction in the same spirit MoG was.

Instead of cursing and being rude, why don't you admit you don't have evidence of PJ of selling her opinions ;-}
You're linking to Roy Schestowitz for proof when I attack your previous source as biased? ROFL
Follow the links to Microsoft email, it really is funny.
@Will Hill Groklaw has been grossly inaccurate on countless occasions, even repeatedly with respect to GPL copyleft. Furthermore, Groklaw maliciously censors reasonable comment that doesn't adhere to its party line -- giving a distorted impression of user comments is bad, while deactivating comments in order to save time is perfectly legitimate.
+Florian Mueller Come on. You should be the last person to talk about other people censoring comments. You don't let anyone comment on anything. That's a bit rich.
How closely do you work with W.E. or other Microsoft representatives, +Florian Mueller? Can we compare your work and correspondence with MoG's?
+Fabian Scherschel Groklaw is not paid. It receives support in kind and even for that PJ had concerns. Now the lead is in my good friend Mark Webbink's hands, he is as independently minded as one can be. Groklaw has ideas, has opinions, has an agenda, but that is wide open to see. On the merit I happen to regularly agree with them and I find the smear campaigns against it despicable.
Well, that "independently minded as one can be" sure as hell doesn't show in the writing.
+Fabian Scherschel I regret that you don't understand that secretive censorship and "muzzling" of dissenters is evil, while no one has to allow comments. I encourage you to be analytical and make the important distinction that's required here. I trust you can make it.
+Florian Mueller Oh, I understand you fine. You are saying that selective censorship is worse than complete censorship. As a student of history, I must vehemently disagree. It is your right to close comments on your posts but you should not attack other people for doing a similar thing. That's hypocrisy.
+Florian Mueller, you pretend to speak for the Free and Open Source world while under Microsoft pay, and Microsoft press amplification, and then have the nerve to talk about distortion? That's particularly funny here under Jan's dismissal of your opinion.
+Fabian Scherschel you can be independently minded and have strong opinions. Mark has them, PJ has them, we all have. They are not on sale and are our own. What matters is that experts on all fields find the reports accurate and a good source of information and debate. Of course nobody writes a new Gospel.

Yesterday I had a discussion with a client who wanted to go after a competitor doing more or less the same thing as Oracle is doing (by the way, a former client of mine which I still support in a EU case), and even more in bad faith than what Google is accused to be. I said "no, even if chances are that the Court will find that API are copyrightable and you might have got a case, my opinion and advice is that you must let them go on this, or find another lawyer.
+Fabian Scherschel What you call hypocrisy on my part is solely due to whatever prevents you (presumably just ideology) from arriving at the only correct conclusion and logically-warranted, fundamental distinction. There's nothing illegitimate about disabling ALL comments. People can still comment elsewhere. But it is devious and despicable to secretly and selectively censor reasonable comments in order to misrepresent the thinking of a "community".
Anyone who claim to be able to find "the only correct conclusion" is either a religious radical or too arrogant. I would never claim to do that.
+Will Hill I'll respond to your two most recent comments.

1) I don't pretend to speak for the open source community and clarified this 17 months ago:

2) What you call "Jan's dismissal of [my] opinion" is logically fatally-flawed as I outlined. The jury reached unanimity on infringement but not on (the dismissal of) fair use.

3) I don't have an obligation to answer someone who is as emotionally-charged as your posts suggest you are, but let me clarify that I've had hardly any contact with W.E. -- there were two W.E. representatives at the Mannheim court last week and that was the first time I ever met a W.E. person. They sent me a couple of official statements -- I have had far, far more extensive contacts so far with PR people working for Android device makers (I always honored their request to treat those conversations as background talk, which is why I didn't quote them, but those companies and I spent and will continue to spend many hours talking).
+Jan Wildeboer If you think you never do that, look at the gist of the very post above this entire discussion thread :-) The bottom line is that +Fabian Scherschel puts a == sign in between something that's a clear != and if someone says 1+1=3, I do reserve the right to say that the only mathematically accurate result is 2.
+Florian Mueller Fact is you are at least as guilty of censorship as Groklaw is. I personally think a lot more, but that's my own feeling. Commenting on it, you definitely exhibit double standards.
+Florian Mueller I believe, from the recounts that I have read so far, that +Jan Wildeboer 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.
+Carlo Piana 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 +Jan Wildeboer, 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.
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 +Jan Wildeboer precognized, and I found entirely feasible, is still entirely feasible. But that is only to inflate our ego, it's not the important matter.
"... 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. and again,

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.
+Florian Mueller 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.
Add a comment...