Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 409 posts

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#131

Post by farcical_tinpot »

curt15 wrote: post #115
farcical_tinpot wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't even really a case (like say, Samba) where copying was necessary to interoperate with a closed, proprietary system. Samba never copied anything. The interoperability argument was simple. Google wanted to use a language that was familiar to most and where developers could take existing code and port trivially. There are developer tools on the market that have done that for decades. Davlik isn't drop-in compa…

>Oracle were never going to get away with that crap argument. To say that had Google copied all the APIs and created a compatible JVM that would have constituted fair use is laughable frankly. Besides, how is the argument that Google effectively didn't copy enough at all consistent with the fair use factor regarding the amount of expression copied?

It's not, but Oracle had got themselves into a bind over the definition of 'interoperability'. They did indeed argue that Google hadn't copied enough, in so many words.

The trouble is that interoperability takes many forms and can't be shoved into a neat box like that.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#132

Post by bitmapbrother »

gpm wrote: post #112
zerocrates wrote: post #63

See, as ever, Florian Mueller for a... different perspective: http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/oracle-v-google-jury-find...

Out of curiosity, do we know if he is still being payed for this?

If not directly from Oracle than indirectly.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#133

Post by ghaff »

koolba wrote: post #25
dctoedt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under the Copyright Act, the judge has discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505

> Under the Copyright Act, the judge has discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. [0] I think that'd be good for the ecosystem as it'd send a message that there will be consequence for pursuing frivolous lawsuits.

It may be frustrating when these sorts of cases wind their way slowly and expensively through the legal system only to achieve (sometimes) obviously correct results. However, that's actually a much better thing than having a person or persons handing down a decision based on what seems obviously right.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#134

Post by erikpukinskis »

grellas wrote: post #120

Law evolves and the law of copyright in particular is ripe for "disruption" - and I say this not as one who opposes the idea of copyright but, on the contrary, as one who strongly supports it. It is right that the author of a creative work get protection for having conceived that work and reduced it to tangible form. Developers do this all the time with their code. So too do many, many others. Many today disagree wit…

> it is a fact that simply letting any casual passer-by copy and distribute any creative work with impunity would

That's not how facts work. You can't say "it is a fact that [hypothetical scenario] leads to [expected outcome]" except in the case of very well understood mechanisms narrowly applied. I don't think the sociopolitical effects of copyright law are one of those situations.

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#136

Post by farcical_tinpot »

slavik81 wrote: post #96
untog wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favourite part: Movement to a few minutes of terse explanations, including what the acronym GNU stands for: GNU is Not Unix. “The G part stands for GNU?” Alsup asked in disbelief. “Yes,” said Schwartz on the stand. “That doesn’t make any sense,” http://motherboard.vice.com/read/in-google-v-oracle-the-nerd...

I never realized how entertaining this trial was. Schwartz: "Back in 2009, Android WAS lame." Google atty: "Move to strike, your honor!" https://twitter.com/xor/status/730456825649188865

Yer, it was absolutely hilarious.

They had to get a tech guy in to open Java files on a computer. They didn't have an IDE installed on there and there were complaints that there were too many folders!

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#137

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Oletros wrote: post #83
zerocrates wrote: post #63

See, as ever, Florian Mueller for a... different perspective: http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/oracle-v-google-jury-find...

His level of insanity and hatred is beyond belief

Well, IIRC he is (or at least was) an intellectual property lawyer. That may have contributed to him seeming to take personally any limitations on what can be covered by IP.

Or maybe not. Most IP lawyers are less unhinged than Muller...

Re: Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour

#140

Post by erikpukinskis »

rayiner wrote: post #12

These are the statutory fair use factors the jury was required to consider (17 U.S.C. 107): (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential…

Who thinks APIs should be protectable? That's thought crime.
Post reply on HN