| |||||||||||||
New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)Posted Jan 23, 2011 22:28 UTC (Sun) by vblum (guest, #1151)In reply to: New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica) by FlorianMueller Parent article: New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)
I read your blog post, and I wonder why you would take such an interest in aiding one side in public.
"I have discovered additional material that Oracle might present to the court"
I simply can't figure out why you would choose to get involved into something like that, either way. At best, this seems to be "open" community vs. "open" community, as in Java vs. Android. At worst, you are working to undermine Google, for reasons that are unclear to me.
In any event, I fail to see how any good might come from such a post. "In case you believe I can be of help by drawing attention to such problems on this blog, ..." (yes, in other contexts, I understand that part) ... well, is that your point?
I just wish you had stuck with No software patents, that, at least, was a worthwhile cause. This here? Just weird.
"If you are or become aware of copyright or patent issues that expose developers and users of open source software (Android or other key projects) to a major risk, please talk to the developers so they resolve any such issues at their earliest opportunity" ... one would think you might have taken your own advice to heart ....
(Log in to post comments)
New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica) Posted Jan 23, 2011 22:32 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
The likelihood that Oracle needed my blog post to find out about those files is extremely low, and in practical terms, non-existent.
When you have a dispute like Oracle vs. Google, you'll see both parties spending MANY millions of dollars, and beyond a huge number of experts they'll use commercial-grade forensic software to identify possible infringements.
In its amended complaint, Oracle said that the file in Exhibit J was just one example of "several" instances of "direct copying". Since the files I found were in an adjacent directory to the one Oracle presented, I really rule out the possibility that they didn't know about those decompiled files.
New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica) Posted Jan 23, 2011 22:46 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> The likelihood that Oracle needed my blog post to find out about those files is extremely low, and in practical terms, non-existent.
You obviously don't understand the significance of you blog post(s) in this whole thing. You are creating a perception that:
1. Oracle has a real contribution to claim in Android.
None of the above things are trivial. The are also untrue.
New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica) Posted Jan 23, 2011 22:40 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
In addition to the answer I just gave, I want to make it very clear that I disagree with Oracle on some issues (such as "open standards"). When Oracle sued Google, I tweeted a link to an Oracle statement from the early 1990's about why software should not be patentable. Also, I fought hard against their acquisition of MySQL.
If it were up to me, not even one of those virtual machine patents would ever have been granted to them. I just try to figure out who's likely to win. I want to understand that, and I want to help people get that information, regardless of personal preferences or popularity considerations.
|
|||||||||||||