3 ms·
He also argued that there was only one way Oracle's Java libraries could have been designed, which is clearly false, and the justices picked up on that.
by az226 6y ago
He also argued that there was only one way Oracle's Java libraries could have been designed, which is clearly false, and the justices picked up on that.
- xoxoy 6y agoreally astonishing. wonder what google saw in him. the oracle lawyer was far more prepared and technically cogent.
- cataphract 6y agoAfter a (long) while it became clear it meant "there is only way that we might make the full use of the current pool of Java programmers", which is an odd argument to advance — why would they be entitled to draw from that pool of programmers. I think it would have been more compelling if he had focused on the interoperability with the ecosystem of Java libraries.
- az226 6y agoAnd the justices picked up on that. I thought they did a good job assessing the case from both ends. At first I thought the justices were against Google and pro Oracle, until I saw them address the Oracle lawyer and it was clear they were asking good questions on both sides.