I don't know if jury put this together but I'm like whooooooooooooa
-
-
Google then plays back depo tape, where Reinhold says JDK is "a large system that does not scale down very well" oh my godddddd
-
In an email from Reinhold in 2010, Reinhold says that for all intents and purposes, "[One Java] is dead."
-
Oracle pulled the plug on One Java at time of acquisition because it "did not see the project as consistent with its business goals"
-
Another email from someone else says One Java (still not sure what this is) was the competitor to Android, should not have been terminated
-
Sorry I'm still stuck on "does not scale down well"
-
That's a March 2016 depo, Google didn't have that in the last trial
-
Yeah, basically their story is Google innovated for smartphones in a way Sun-Oracle didn't/wouldn't/couldn't https://twitter.com/BlueSpaceCanary/status/732635035745026048 …
Ce Tweet est indisponible. -
Particularly interesting after Reinhold disputed that SE was that much different from ME!
-
Redirect went by fast, no recross, Reinhold has been released.
-
Oracle's next witness is Douglas Schmidt. Currently reading in a stipulation.
-
We're now reading in a stipulation that lists how many # of declaring code statements used per Android version.
-
So Alsup is reading out dessert names followed by numbers.
-
15 min break.
-
Going through some of the slides, Google says they have argumentative language, Alsup says "It's not as bad as you think it sounds"
-
Oracle saying presentations are business records, Alsup gets mad & says they might as well bring in "wheelbarrows" of "internal propaganda"
-
Gets indignant and flaps a page around asking how "you lawyers" can even think that
-
This is a really good question -- I think the damage has already been done.https://twitter.com/George__Lee/status/732640995570028544 …
-
Any new precedent that rustles out of this second round (say, on appeal), I think, is not nearly as potentially damaging
@George__Lee -
On top of that, I think that the existing precedent coming out of Fed Cir is unlikely to be reused—runs counter to norms
@George__Lee -
Basically this litigation happened because Oracle is douchey enough to do it, and Google is rich enough to take it
@George__Lee -
I think the damage is going to come in the form of chilling effects, not in future litigation.
@George__Lee -
ANYWAYS we're back to the trial. Looking at a November 2015 depo of a Google employee (didn't catch his name)
-
It's Urs Hölze.
-
He's explaining the GPL and saying it's hard to know whether you're compliant or not.
-
Next video witness. Dec 2015 video depo with Reto Meier, also Google employee.
-
Oracle [tape]: Is it your understanding that the Java API packages are distinct from the Java programming language? Meier: Yes.
-
Note that this is different from what Donald Smith (Oracle) said in his disaster depo (said they were inseparable) before he retracted.
-
Another video depo of a Google employee from late 2015. Testifying that using Java attracted developers.
-
Theoretically possible that the same question could go up to the Supreme Court again in this *same case*https://twitter.com/lairek/status/732644826617876480 …
- 106 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.