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

Post by DannyB2 » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

oceanghost wrote: post #30

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #13

Who here remembers Groklaw? PJ was covering Oracle vs. Google with the same level of detail that she used on SCO vs. IBM. Coverage ran up into the first appeal, when she stopped updating the site. • The list of all Oracle vs. Google filings (up to the site's closing), with links to articles that mention them. Not all filings had corresponding articles: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=OracleGoog... •…

Groklaw was a daily read for me in the Caldera era. :-)

Post by dontblink » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 3:18 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #33

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…

I very strongly support Google’s side of this case. But them claiming to champion open innovation is incredibly condescending and frankly bullshit. They’re pursuing this case exclusively for financial motives (which I don’t think there’s anything wrong with to be clear). But the fact that there’s some public good behind it is just a happy coincidence for their marketing department. They’d just as happily be on Oracle…

Post by danShumway » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 3:29 PM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #5

This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted”. Call me cynical but I feel like google is narrowly interested in open innovation when they are at risk for billions in fines, and definitely also supports openness in other ways, but still supports a lot of proprietary and closed source work. There are lots of business reasons to be closed source, but do…

Post by pjmlp » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 3:51 PM UTC

DannyB2 wrote: post #62

Just to point something out. IBM sponsored and was the primary contributor of resources to an independently developed Java work-alike called Apache Harmony. (about JDK 1.5 level, IIRC) Apache Harmony was, naturally, under the Apache license. Google wanted something like Java for Android, so Google used Apache Harmony. Sun was okay with Google having something like Java in Android and had said so. (perhaps reluctantly…

Post by pjmlp » Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #64

DannyB2 wrote: post #62

Just to point something out. IBM sponsored and was the primary contributor of resources to an independently developed Java work-alike called Apache Harmony. (about JDK 1.5 level, IIRC) Apache Harmony was, naturally, under the Apache license. Google wanted something like Java for Android, so Google used Apache Harmony. Sun was okay with Google having something like Java in Android and had said so. (perhaps reluctantly…

Google explicitly calls out in its brief the fact that Sun, as the original author of the code, very explicitly did not consider Google to be infringing. Although I do wish Google tried harder to press the point that, based on Oracle's argument that copying the API infringes copyright, Oracle itself is in violation of others' copyright. Ars Technica has an example of that (Amazon's AWS), and the brief does give a vag…