2 ms·

Wow, your comment doesn't even fit in its entirety into my browser window without scrolling. :) For posterity you may want to edit "No one has a stake is seeing

Wow, your comment doesn't even fit in its entirety into my browser window without scrolling. :) For posterity you may want to edit "No one has a stake is seeing that Oracle be awarded $9", I'm not sure how to parse that. I didn't find any other typos or grammar mistakes which is pretty amazing for a chunk of prose of that length (at least it is for me.) Don't know why you're being downvoted for giving such a comprehensive and thoughtful comment. Ridiculous really. I say even if you disagree with grellas don't donwvote, please reply and put the same amount of effort into the reply as was put into the comment above.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
Effort for effort is eye for an eye fallacy. The OP seems to make some mistakes of fact. The decision was not Alsup's, but the jury's finding of fact: Google's use is fair even if API's are copyrightable (Alsup believed they weren't). For the quote you don't understand, I believe the mistake is only in a single character, 'is' should be 'in' (to which I present Larry Ellison as the central counter-example).
- grellas 10y ago
  Thanks, I corrected the typo. As to the first round that occurred 4 years ago, the decision was Judge Alsup's. Here is my analysis of that decision at that time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#up_4051761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#up_4051761 Of course, in the verdict that just came down, the decision was that of the jury's and, yes, Google's use is fair even if API's are copyrightable - that is what fair use means.
steamer25 10y ago
> No one has a stake is seeing that Oracle be awarded $9 billion in damages just because it bought Sun Microsystems and found an opportunity through its lawyers to make a big money grab against Google My paraphrase: ~[No one outside of Oracle is overly sympathetic to their money grab against Google. Everyone sees their claims as overly-litigious--based on the simple fact of having purchased Sun Microsystems rather than a legitimate defense of their own creative and value-creating effort.]

jsprogrammer 10y ago

Effort for effort is eye for an eye fallacy. The OP seems to make some mistakes of fact. The decision was not Alsup's, but the jury's finding of fact: Google's use is fair even if API's are copyrightable (Alsup believed they weren't). For the quote you don't understand, I believe the mistake is only in a single character, 'is' should be 'in' (to which I present Larry Ellison as the central counter-example).

grellas 10y ago
Thanks, I corrected the typo. As to the first round that occurred 4 years ago, the decision was Judge Alsup's. Here is my analysis of that decision at that time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#up_4051761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050490#up_4051761 Of course, in the verdict that just came down, the decision was that of the jury's and, yes, Google's use is fair even if API's are copyrightable - that is what fair use means.

steamer25 10y ago

> No one has a stake is seeing that Oracle be awarded $9 billion in damages just because it bought Sun Microsystems and found an opportunity through its lawyers to make a big money grab against Google My paraphrase: ~[No one outside of Oracle is overly sympathetic to their money grab against Google. Everyone sees their claims as overly-litigious--based on the simple fact of having purchased Sun Microsystems rather than a legitimate defense of their own creative and value-creating effort.]