or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by veblen

I'm just talking about the 37 files referenced in the Apple Insider article. "My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit." If these files weren't used significantly to create Android how would their existence significantly affect Oracle's income stream from J2ME pre and post android? I'm not seeing the correlation...
I think Google is 100% liable for having these particular files within their repository. I just don't think that these particular files were used by Google in a way which significantly damaged Oracle based on the information we have about them. These do not appear to be central to Google's development process at all, they simply existed out in a branch of their repository. From my understanding the commercial gain or loss of the infringement is central to damages. I...
I never said google doesn't profit from android. I have said google didn't profit much if at all from the code described in the article. I really like your signature, Douglas Adams was great.
I shouldn't have said that Oracle looks like a patent troll here. As yet Oracle hasn't included these particular files in their lawsuit. I don't know if Oracle's lawyers are going to make a big deal about these files at all, maybe they won't.
I'm not defending Google from liability, nor am I making any statement to Google's respect for intellectual property rights in general. I just don't see this particular instance being particularly damaging to them. I think at this point I'll just agree to disagree about this instance in particular and see how this thing hashes out in the future.
Everything I'm reading online is saying that damages and profits from the infringement are taken into account when a penalty for the infringement is assigned.http://www2.lib.purdue.edu/uco/Copyr...penalties.html
Didn't realize I'd typed patent until after I submitted it and you were too fast for me. I'm not seeing the disrespect for intellectual property. Google didn't put the code there a third party SONiVOX did. When it was pointed out that the code was owned by Oracle they removed it. While it was there Google hadn't used it for anything of consequence.
I agree. Google is completely liable for it's mistake here. But I think some perspective is needed on the scale of the infringement and the corresponding penalty. I'm reading that Google removed the offending code from their repository when they were notified and didn't use it for anything of consequence while it was there. If this is in fact the case what kind of damages would Oracle be able to get for the infringement? I'm not thinking a whole lot. I'm not a...
I disagree. I think Samsung has the knowledge to look at the unimportance of the code in question and see how little damage or gain it caused. I think the way this story was framed makes it seem far more important than it actually is.
I agree with everything you have written here. We'll see how important the code is and what commercial damage and gain it caused. The more I'm reading suggests it was unimportant. Pleasure discussing this with you.
New Posts  All Forums: