Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

Post by ronilan » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 5:05 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #20

ronilan wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the lawsuit will now be known as Google v. Oracle, since Google asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. After nine years, we’ll have to get used to calling the case by this new name Interesting. Poetic. Google can’t win this fight (if they win) as a defendant, only as an aggressor.

> Google can’t win this fight (if they win) as a defendant Sure they can (and it's the only way they can), if they win at the Supreme Court, it will be as a Defendant-Appellant. And if, as is often the case, the final formalization of the victory comes on remand back to the trial court from the Supreme Court after the Supreme Court declares the controlling law, that victory will be as a simple Defendant.

Post by chipperyman573 » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 5:35 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #18

gpm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is coming from a whole lot more than just Google. They are the ones who will lose money in the immediate lawsuit, but we all stand to suffer if Oracle's interpretation of the law is held up. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the entire software community who has weighed in on this to support google in the form of amicus briefs (which I really do encourage you to read). Here is a partial list of other g…

> This case isn't about Google making or loosing some money, Google being open or not. None of the amici care about that, the supreme court doesn't care about that. Only Google and Oracle care about that. ... I don't think there's much support here for Oracle winning on its claims. But this particular subthread was pointing out the hypocrisy of Google trumpeting "Openness in all cases!" These are two separate and unr…

Post by rapnie » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 5:55 AM UTC

chipperyman573 wrote: post #23

ethbro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This case isn't about Google making or loosing some money, Google being open or not. None of the amici care about that, the supreme court doesn't care about that. Only Google and Oracle care about that. ... I don't think there's much support here for Oracle winning on its claims. But this particular subthread was pointing out the hypocrisy of Google trumpeting "Openness in all cases!" These are two separate and unr…

What's wrong with Android? Isn't it fully open-source? I thought you could compile your own version and flash it onto a bootloader-unlocked phone

Post by bduerst » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 6:26 AM UTC

rapnie wrote: post #25

chipperyman573 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with Android? Isn't it fully open-source? I thought you could compile your own version and flash it onto a bootloader-unlocked phone

In reality not fully open source: > Android's source code does not contain the device drivers, often proprietary, that are needed for certain hardware components. As a result, most Android devices, including Google's own, ship with a combination of free and open source and proprietary software, with the software required for accessing Google services falling into the latter category . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An…

Post by ShorsHammer » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 6:43 AM UTC

pisky wrote: post #28

ethbro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stopped updating it for a reason -- http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175

Has that site been hacked? When I use Chrome's simplified view there is a paragraph injected talking about and linking to live porn.