|
witness whiteboard coding in front of the jury, one juror has head in her hands
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
i don't think Google has a chance in hell of getting fair use but hearing about the trial idiocy is quite fun.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:amazingly enough the judge does, and if the appeals court knew anything they wouldn't have decided he was wrong and sent the case back to him
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:i don't think Google has a chance in hell of getting fair use but hearing about the trial idiocy is quite fun. they certainly won't if they don't actually bother to make a fair use argument at some point
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Plorkyeran posted:you have it backwards. the judge ruled that apis aren't copyrightable, and the appeals court overruled him to say they were
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:what part of that is backwards the judge does not believe in the fundamental premise of the case he is ruling on. you said that he does.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
random tweets are ok but has anyone published the transcript yet?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
i can't get transcripts, but there is this order that came out todayquote:To accommodate the press, counsel shall each place five thumb drives containing copies of any trial exhibits they used (and for Monday, all prior exhibits as well) in the press room on the eighteenth floor after trial adjourns each day. (Alternatively, the parties may collaborate to provide a joint compilation on one set of five thumb drives.) Exceptions can be made in extraordinary circumstances. To be clear, the parties need not provide copies of electronic devices, books, or other cumbersome exhibits or exhibits that are not easily conveyed in a digital format. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 01:13 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
the northern district of california restricts access to transcripts for the first 90 days so i can't just pull them up on pacer.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Plorkyeran posted:the judge does not believe in the fundamental premise of the case he is ruling on. you said that he does.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
the thing is, apis should be protected in some way. the best way we have to handle that right now is copyright. goog is gonna lose hard on this and it's their own drat fault. they had legal avenues that would have arrived at the same end result but deliberately chose not to.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:the thing is, apis should be protected in some way. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
the judge set out to learn java just for this case. so he should be able to complete typing in an API without suffering an RSI, but would he recognize a bad programming language with its bad syntax if he saw one? i think not. i'd trust his opinions on API Design as much as i'd entrust a meal to a cook with no taste
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/xor/status/731282545682210816
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:I'm not sure anyone in the room actually believes the fundamental premise that this lawsuit is founded on, which is that APIs are actually copyrightable this is the standard reductionist misunderstanding of the law, it is not an enumeration of what categories of things are copyrightable, it lists often deliberately vague criterias on which to judge it obviously an api *can* be protected by copyright (they may at the very least indirectly encode a lot of the details about a much broader work), and equally obviously *most* apis certainly aren't sufficiently elaborate works that they deserve it (the case here i expect most people, including me, feel)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
I mean no one on that hey is going to understand anything, it's about whether they like computer autists or blood-sucking lawyers more could go either way really because people don't much like either
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Google has rested its case
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Google has rested its case did they ever really present a fair use defense?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:did they ever really present a fair use defense? they kinda touched on a few parts of one today
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
did anyone bring up that sun sued Microsoft for the same thing and won?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
everything about this case is super dumb
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
I'm happy to have found out that writing method signatures is like playing the violin though
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
hopefully the judge will make the correct decision and dissolve both companies and imprison their senior leadership
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
I don't know why y'all keep bringing up the judge, this is a jury trial.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
the judges middle name is haskell btw
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Stymie posted:hopefully the judge will make the correct decision and dissolve both companies and imprison their senior leadership happy cultural revolution day, everyone!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:did anyone bring up that sun sued Microsoft for the same thing and won? wasn't it more because Microsoft was trying their Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing with Java by adding proprietary poo poo and introducing subtle incompatibilities, and Sun pulled their license over it? Or at least their license to call it Java?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:wasn't it more because Microsoft was trying their Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing with Java by adding proprietary poo poo and introducing subtle incompatibilities, and Sun pulled their license over it? Or at least their license to call it Java? +5, insightful
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
there was nothing subtle about the incompatibility, delegates generated .class files with incompatible byte code
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
lmao google https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/732584341168001024
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
the legal contortions both sides are pulling here (much moreso Oracle) are goddamn hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Doc Block posted:wasn't it more because Microsoft was trying their Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing with Java by adding proprietary poo poo and introducing subtle incompatibilities, and Sun pulled their license over it? Or at least their license to call it Java? it was because of the incompatibilities which is one part of the oracle v goog suit. goog is trying to argue sun (who owned java at the time) was ok w/ partial implementations but clearly they weren't.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Iridium posted:the legal contortions both sides are pulling here (much moreso Oracle) are goddamn hilarious. oracle isn't doing anything crazy. their position is 100% supported by statute and case law. Google was loving stupid and had a host of legal avenues to accomplish their goal and explicitly chose against pursuing any of them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
yeah oracle is 100% correct here
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
google was a deliberate bad actor with shaky legal claims from the onset.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
when you have emails being passed around going, 'couldn't sun sue us for this?' 'nah they won't have the balls lol' you sort of lose a lot of escape avenues
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
they litterrally thought "its better to ask for forgiveness, than to ask for permission" was a viable legal strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:when you have emails being passed around going, 'couldn't sun sue us for this?' 'nah they won't have the balls lol' you sort of lose a lot of escape avenues p much.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
jury trial was probably a mistake tho. they're gonna decide on brand loyalty.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 18:40
|
|