mmmmmmmmmmmmm
-
-
We're due for a coffee break, I think. Now we're talking about Classpath, so everyone who's playing the GNU drinking game gets to drink
-
Direct is over, now we're at a 15 min break.
-
Bringing back the jury.
-
We're now on Google's cross of Edward Screven.
-
Google reiterating Screven's work experience, basically attempt to discred his testimony re: spec license b/c not familiar with ~industry~
-
Google rolling through iterations of same question re: "You didn't work at Sun when _______ "
-
Screven has only ever worked at Oracle, for T H I R T Y years, he is an Oracle lifer
-
supposedly he took a leave of absence for some months to do contract work but well T H I R T Y years
-
You didn't work at Sun while _____, did you?
-
ad libs that one
-
You didn't work at Sun while Java was being developed, did you?
-
Google: You didn't work at Sun on a boat, did you? You didn't work at Sun on a moat, did you? Screven: No, I did not work at Sun, Sam I Am
-
Oracle: Objection, Your Honor, we do not want their green eggs and ham.
-
Looking at another powerpoint. * "Investing in Sun technologies is a risk bet" * Software is a "step-child" of the broader hardware biz
-
Google now crossing about Apache Harmony, asking if he testified that Apache took a specification license from Sun
-
Screven is backpedaling, saying that the specification license comes bundled with the specification, like something in a book
-
what's that case with the wiley "license" in the book that isn't binding bc copyright law
-
the one that's not kirtsaeng?
-
In prior testimony, Screven said Sun never gave a license to Apache Harmony.
-
Apparent contradiction, but as with many things in this trial, Screven isn't a lawyer.
-
The lawyers are trying to explain the tech, the engineers are trying to explain the law, everything is backwards
-
Google: You said you weren't aware of any Apache products in the commercial market... Screven: No, I said unlicensed products.
-
Google: You're aware of IBM's products?
-
Screven says IBM is licensed. Google asks if IBM is licensed to contribute code. Screven quibbles.
-
G: Declaring code is a form of source code—that's Oracle's position in this case, correct? Screven: Declaring code is a form of source code.
-
Google: Oracle used all the declaring code word for word, that's correct, yes? Screven: Yes.
-
Google: And they had to do that to pass the TCK? Screven: Yes.
-
Google points to a license (is this the spec license?) that says source code cannot be used in an independent implementation.
-
Google: But that's what you didn't, didn't you? Oracle used the declaring code in your independent implementation, yes?
-
Screven disagrees on Google reading of the license. Google: Are you saying here that declaring code is not source code?
- 171 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.