This is in the jury instruction btw:pic.twitter.com/RDDEaN9urW
Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
"Android is not a substitute for Java. ... It's not like Java SE, it's not like Java ME."
* "Sun developed the Java programming language and made it free for all to use."
I should add that owning an Android phone does not bias me towards Google.https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/734760121285238785 …
If anything I have to work to not let my shit phone sway my feelings here
Van Nest is going through Eric Schmidt's electric plug/outlet API analogy.
The API is the interface-- the outlet. The implementation is sun power, wind power, etc.
Van Nest now going through Schwartz's analogy. "His was hamburgers for breakfast, remember?" lol
Van Nest points out that even though Oracle tried to attack Schwartz for being a bad CEO, "Sun IS Oracle."
Now going through Phipps's writings on the official Sun website—FAQs aimed at the FOSS dev community.
Sun said they supported open interfaces, and that's consistent with Schmidt and Schwartz testimonies.
Going through Oracle testimony — live testimony here and depos — about how APIs are critical to the java language.
Slide says: "Sun's Business Model: A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats"
Schwartz official statements about supporting Android, etc.
Schwartz email to Schmidt: Let us known how we can help.
Now a very dense timeline. Can't read text from second row. Too tiny.
Timeline includes TX#s (exhibit numbers), presumably this will be in the jury room to help the jury out.
Van Nest is leaning heavily on Schwartz's testimony, as representing what Sun (now Oracle) intended and meant.
I'm not sure how the jury reads this. I know the industry reads the situation as Oracle subverting Sun's values after acquisition.
In my opinion, it's almost irrelevant to fair use.
But it sure has the potential to make Oracle look like a bunch of dicks.
Now going through Ellison's statements at JavaOne and a joint presentation by Sun-Oracle, to show that Oracle adopted these principles
(Something that I think the industry doesn't really believe, but this is part of the Google story at trial)
Now going through the Fair use factors. Under Factor 2, Van Nest says that it's "Functional." EYEBROW RAISED
Factor 1: Highly transformative Factor 2: Functional Factor 3: Tiny Fraction Factor 4: Not a substitute
AND THEN HE ADDS ANOTHER ROW that says "Other Factors" lmao and it says "Good faith industry practice"
The weight of Google's evidence in this FAIR USE TRIAL has been on Factor 2 and "Other Factors" 
Now going through Sun's failures to build Java-based smartphones.
And now, the Oracle failures.
I'd call this a low blow except Oracle's the one that sued for $9 billion.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.