We're now going into the fair use factors, but Van Ness says, "Those factors are not exclusive."
-
-
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.
-
Van Nest takes a moment to distinguish Douglas Schmidt (Oracle expert witness) from Eric Schmidt (Google top hat man)
-
Making the transformative argument by telling the story of how engineers picked and chose specific APIs, wrote own implementing code,
-
added libraries, etc. that were aimed specifically at smartphones. (Think cameras etc)
-
Using Dalvik and Linux kernel as well.
-
"At the end of the day there's virtually nothing in common with Android and Java SE."
-
Bizarrely, story of transformative use also resembles an argument that it's too functional to be copyrightable
-
What a weird case.
-
"Even their expert, Mr. Jaffe, called Android 'a feat not achieved by any other tech giant.'"
-
Google closing argument does hint a little at Google exceptionalism, but not in an uncouth way.
- 114 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.