Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Legal Analysis of Oracle v. Google

Posted by timothy on from the not-to-be-confused-with-a-free-market dept.

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Martin Heller provides an in-depth analysis of Oracle's legal argument against Google, a suit that includes seven alleged counts of software process patent infringement and one count of copyright infringement. 'Oracle's desired relief is drastic: not just permanent injunctions, but destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices), plus triple damages and legal costs. Also, it demands a jury trial,' Heller writes, and while this amounts mainly to saber-rattling, the Supreme Court's recent Bilski ruling did not completely invalidate software process patents despite their shaky ground due to prior art."

4 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. This is in depth analysis? by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll sum up the article:

    1) Oracle is suing Java over Android.
    2) Oracle hired a really good lawyer, so they must be serious.
    3) I sure hate software patents.
    4) Oracle would like all copies of Android destroyed, but this isn't likely.
    5) Sun might settle out of court.
    6) Did I mention I hate software patents?
    7) You should try to make life harder for Oracle, since I hate software patents.

    With all due respect to the author, half the posts on this Slashdot thread will probably have as much to say and contain as much useful information -- but really, maybe whoever wrote/published the article summary is more to blame for claims the article just doesn't live up to.

  2. Did they buy Sun for this? by fvandrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd almost suspect they just bought Sun to use the cited patents in court. The patents are so broad and ill defined that if they uphold there are not many processes that do not violate them. (Heck -- my coffee-maker probably violates them!)

  3. Mods ... by udippel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please, mod up the submitter. Submitting is his good right, and we should reward his efforts.

    Please, mod timothy down for accepting a boring, not-even-a-story.

    Please, mod the original author 'overrated', since his story should never have made it into infoworld in the first place.

  4. Re:Two short pages are "in-depth analysis" ? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's InfoWorld. There's a reason that my user CSS adds [IDIOT WARNING] in red after any links to their site...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News