Office by Alex Penny
My name is Bill, I am a recent graduate in Information Sciences and Technology from Penn State University and this is a place for me to post or give my 2 cents on the fascinating world of technology. I am now working for a pretty big technology related company whose name I will leave out just to avoid any possible complications, however far-fetched them happening may be. Music gets included from time to time as well.
Reposted from http://lat.ms/PizieT on August 24, 2012 at 08:40PM
The judge presiding over the infringement case between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. spotted two inconsistencies in the jury’s pro-Apple verdict and asked the nine-member jury to return to the deliberation room to reconsider the issues.
If something doesn’t seriously change between now and whatever result we get after the endless repeals process, we could be looking at a huge blow for innovation tonight. 3 days to deliberate a case so dense it deserved at least a week, ridiculous.
A federal judge in San Francisco has handed Oracle another setback in its case against Google. Oracle Corp. had accused Google Inc. of stealing Oracle’s Java programming language to build Google‘s Android software for mobile devices.
See below for similar articles.
It’s amazing how much the jury actually got. The entire time we were worried that these people were sitting there befuddled by jargon, but they actually did an excellent job interpreting the legal reasons behind the laws they were debating and applying them to the case. That they ultimately made the decision based on what’s good for the public really blows my mind, you’ll never find that reasoning in a Texas jury. It’s annoying that the judge’s instructions for them to think of API’s as copyrightable made them feel like their deciding power was limited. This part of the case I feel was the most mishandled and definitely worthy of Google’s call for a mistrial. Still, can’t be upset to see a group of Americans come together and make a thoughtful, rational decision after amicable debating.
“If Alsup finds that the SSO is copyrightable, the two minor infringement counts will be bundled along with the SSO charge to be handled in any new trial or appeal. If he rules against Oracle on this point, however, Alsup will simply award Oracle statutory damages — a maximum of $150,000 for each of the two counts. That doesn’t leave Oracle out in the cold, though; Alsup’s ruling on SSO copyrightability will no doubt be appealed, and should it be overturned and the case sent down to be tried again, Oracle will have the opportunity to re-open the two minor copyright counts to go after larger damages.”
The only issue I have with this is that whatever decisions are made from the case still stand for future precedent.
—
Well, this should make those of us that actually care about the outcome of this case sleep better.(Source: Washington Post)
Second part of the case begins, this is the one I was less confident on for Google. A patent is much more defined, they basically will have to prove it should never have earned a patent. Part of this will depend on how literally the “machine” aspect of virtual machine is taken.
“Treating APIs as copyrightable would have a profound negative impact on interoperability, and, therefore, innovation. APIs are ubiquitous and fundamental to all kinds of program development … Allowing a party to assert control over APIs means that a party can determine who can make compatible and interoperable software, an idea that is anathema to those who create the software we rely on everyday. Put clearly, the developer of a platform should not be able to control add-on software development for that platform”
-Julie Samuels, EFF
