Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: E. Pluribus Unum
SCO II.

Funny you write that, since Boies is representing Oracle too. I'm generally against pure software patents, believing that most of them are obvious to a "person having ordinary skill in the art." But I haven't looked at these specific patents.

However, the copyright claims would have merit unless Google can show a clean-room implementation. Given that Android code is openly published, I'd bet Oracle found their copyrighted code in it or they wouldn't have included this claim.

5 posted on 08/13/2010 6:48:19 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: antiRepublicrat

So I’ve read the complaint which gives me an idea of what the patents are. Most of them are pure software patents. There was a couple in there that MIGHT have hardware implications.

Other facts to consider. Sun created a patent “GRANT” for all clean-room implementations. So your comment about “Oracle” code being in Dalvik seems spot on. The other possibility that might give Oracle a leg up is whether Dalvik (the Java Runtime on my Android phone) has extensions to the Java Classes. This is something that the patent “GRANT” explicitly disallows.

Another angle that is in Google’s favor is that the pure software patents are going to be a soft spot in Oracle’s shield since pure software patents are now dubious under current patent law.

This one isn’t SCO part Deux though because Oracle has money. So it’s more a battle of giants. Likely it’ll come down to them exchanging some funds and cross licensing. That is how we usually resolve disputes like this in the valley made of silicone. ;-)


6 posted on 08/13/2010 8:32:21 AM PDT by fremont_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson