|
your honor, we submit in to evidence the Curb Your Enthusiasm theme song
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
Shaggar posted:they litterrally thought "its better to ask for forgiveness, than to ask for permission" was a viable legal strategy. didn't foresee larry fuckin ellison coming onto the scene did ya, shittards? and larry is no one's bitch. he wants another hawaiian island thanks for offering to pick up the tab, morons
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
u see what happens larry
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
triple sulk posted:LARRY : U SEE WHAT HAPPENS, LARRY?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Automated systems often betray the biases and shortcomings of their creators. "Check to see if the final draft is privileged before slurping up the earlier drafts for evidence submission? Nahh... they don't even have addresses in them!"
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/xor/status/732630055013089280 Is there anything weird from a legal standpoint here?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:Is there anything weird from a legal standpoint here? have to imagine that depends entirely on the coaching, can't really expect witnesses to be kept in complete darkness for the trial
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
doesn't seem like it to me, but I'm no expert. the only thing they're ruling on is fair use, and Google doesn't really have a valid argument.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Reinhold just got dunked on
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:https://twitter.com/xor/status/732630055013089280 it makes the witness look bad to the jury but that's about it. as long as they haven't been coached to lie I doubt theres a problem legally.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Google should use a parody defense i.e. android is a parody of Java
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Ludwig van Halen posted:Google should use a parody defense i.e. android is a parody of Java *dalvik also lol
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
even that lovely defense falls apart because they were explicitly marketing it as java though lomarf
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Despite what the armchair lawyers in this thread are saying it clearly can't be cut and dried or else the case would have been resolved with the first trial.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
power botton posted:Despite what the armchair lawyers in this thread are saying it clearly can't be cut and dried or else the case would have been resolved with the first trial.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
we were always at war with eurasia
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
power botton posted:Despite what the armchair lawyers in this thread are saying it clearly can't be cut and dried or else the case would have been resolved with the first trial. the first jury couldn't decide fair use because the court ruled they didn't have copyright protection. they only reason the appellate court did not rule in oracles favor on fair use was a few issues of fact remained that need to be tried at a lower court. The appellate order actually listed the specific items for Google to demonstrate and they failed to do.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
google's only hope from the start was to get the copyrights ruled invalid. they failed and they haven't presented a case (because they don't have one) for fair use.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Ianal and all that, but shouldn't fair use work be transformative? Like a parody? How can what goog has done be that when their express purpose is to provide an identical experience for devs?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
it doesn't have to be transformative, but that can be covered under fair use. for example, if goog created their own runtime libs that didn't take any APIs from java se, but they used the java language then they might have been ok. The problem is they're undeniably trading on parts of the java se API for which oracle owns a copyright. unless the jury is idiots (which is possible) goog is hosed. If they had negotiated a license w/ sun way back when they first started, they would have probably been fine even if it wasn't a 100% implementation of java SE. they thought sun was a bunch of pussies and they may have been right, but lmao larry aint gonna let any poo poo slide.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
will this take android off the market? we can only hope.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
probably not but it will add to the list of people who make more money on android than goog.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
larry you rat. how could you give me the ol spicy software
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
I bet sun would have given them the license for free lol.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:I bet sun would have given them the license for free lol. Sun were cool guys who wore birkenstocks and drank kombucha. Oracle are hard fuckers who wear tie bars and drink battery acid.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
oracle exposed government corruption in Oregon and got a governor fired over it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:I bet sun would have given them the license for free lol. i forget what the number was but it was basically free for someone like google. less than $200k iirc
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:oracle exposed government corruption in Oregon and got a governor fired over it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
zokie posted:Ianal and all that, but shouldn't fair use work be transformative? Like a parody? How can what goog has done be that when their express purpose is to provide an identical experience for devs? the argument i think most would make is that it is fair use de minimis; reimplementing some fragment of the api of a large work may not be considered really infringing on the large work, simply because it is too minor note that that precise direction is what limits a lot of the reductionist nerd arguments (if apis are copyrightable then i'll take "int main()" for myself lolz0rs!), but google may have taken too much for that argument to fly
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:no, shaggar, he was fired because of his wife's indiscretion. oracle probably wasn't even involved in that. he was fired for corruption that was exposed by oracle. the replacement governor tried to cover it all up and keep oracle's suits from leaving the state and going to a non-biased judiciary.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:oracle exposed government corruption in Oregon and got a governor fired over it. all they exposed were some colossally lovely contract negotiators
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
would it have been better for Google if they named the infringing packages like dalvik.lang.String instead of java.lang.String. or would that be covered by trademark?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:he was fired for corruption that was exposed by oracle. the replacement governor tried to cover it all up and keep oracle's suits from leaving the state and going to a non-biased judiciary.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Ludwig van Halen posted:would it have been better for Google if they named the infringing packages like dalvik.lang.String instead of java.lang.String. or would that be covered by trademark? probably not since 'string' has been comp sci. nomenclature since forever so there's a poo poo load of prior art. same goes for 'lang' which is even more generic
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Ludwig van Halen posted:would it have been better for Google if they named the infringing packages like dalvik.lang.String instead of java.lang.String. or would that be covered by trademark? that would definitely have been better as long as it wasn't entirely just search and replace java -> dalvik. the reason they didn't do that is because the whole point of using java was to gain all the advantages of the standard lib and the code already built on top of it. its pretty much the exact opposite of fair use.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
err I mean like instead of copying and pasting the declaring code from sun/oracle and using the Java name in their packages. if they had changed the names slightly would it still be copyright infringement? like if they have the same String.compareTo method, but with a different package name
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
it would be like if you started a company that rebroadcasted popular copyrighted tv (like NFL games), but over the internet. your business only has value to customers because of the 3rd party copyrighted material.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:that would definitely have been better as long as it wasn't entirely just search and replace java -> dalvik. the reason they didn't do that is because the whole point of using java was to gain all the advantages of the standard lib and the code already built on top of it. its pretty much the exact opposite of fair use. yeah this
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
android should have partnered with ms and used .net instead
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
Ludwig van Halen posted:err I mean like instead of copying and pasting the declaring code from sun/oracle and using the Java name in their packages. if they had changed the names slightly would it still be copyright infringement? like if they have the same String.compareTo method, but with a different package name yeah idk how much of a change they'd need to do. any change at all would give them a stronger bargaining position cause it would be harder for oracle to prove that an incompatible dalvik java api is a copy of java se's api.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:52
|
|