5 ms·

Google tried to argue for fair use under the idea of interoperability, but the (few) intentional differences from Java that prevent most Java programs from runn

Google tried to argue for fair use under the idea of interoperability, but the (few) intentional differences from Java that prevent most Java programs from running unmodified on Android pretty much bombed that case...

jcranmer 6y ago
Note that Google won both the jury trials (first on not violating copyright, and then on the violation being fair use after the first was overturned on CAFC). In other words, Google won on most or all of its arguments at the jury trial level, and CAFC kept overturning all of its arguments. The sentiment I'm getting from the oral arguments is that SCOTUS is leaning much more towards "CAFC is off its rocker" here.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Wait, you have access to the oral arguments? Source?
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Oral arguments are happening via teleconference as a result of coronavirus, so they've been streamed live by C-SPAN. You can find the replay here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-america-oral-argument https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-ameri...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Wait, you have access to the oral arguments? Don't need oral arguments for the results of the first trial and the arguments filed in the appeal of that first trial. Here's the final judgement from the first trial: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1211.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1211.pdf Note on the second page: > With respect to Oracle’s claim for relief for copyright infringement, judgment is entered in favor of Google and against Oracle except as follows: the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java, and the eight decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and one “ACL” file), And here's Oracle’s reply brief in the appeal; the relevant part on this issue is under the heading THERE IS NO “DE MINIMIS” DEFENSE TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/OraGoogleAppeal-134.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/OraGoogleAppeal-134.pdf
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

jcranmer 6y ago

Note that Google won both the jury trials (first on not violating copyright, and then on the violation being fair use after the first was overturned on CAFC). In other words, Google won on most or all of its arguments at the jury trial level, and CAFC kept overturning all of its arguments. The sentiment I'm getting from the oral arguments is that SCOTUS is leaning much more towards "CAFC is off its rocker" here.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Wait, you have access to the oral arguments? Source?
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Oral arguments are happening via teleconference as a result of coronavirus, so they've been streamed live by C-SPAN. You can find the replay here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-america-oral-argument https://www.c-span.org/video/?469263-1/google-v-oracle-ameri...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Wait, you have access to the oral arguments? Don't need oral arguments for the results of the first trial and the arguments filed in the appeal of that first trial. Here's the final judgement from the first trial: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1211.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1211.pdf Note on the second page: > With respect to Oracle’s claim for relief for copyright infringement, judgment is entered in favor of Google and against Oracle except as follows: the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java, and the eight decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and one “ACL” file), And here's Oracle’s reply brief in the appeal; the relevant part on this issue is under the heading THERE IS NO “DE MINIMIS” DEFENSE TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/OraGoogleAppeal-134.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/OraGoogleAppeal-134.pdf
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]