Check out Groklaw too.....
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Oct 06, 2010 4:53 AM EDT |
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101005114201136 PJ has a pretty good analysis of what is happening as per the Google response. I found it fascinating reading and worth while looking at the exact documentation of the Google counterclaims. Once you have those you begin to understand why PJ claims Google is "mad" over this attack by Oracle.....Whatever, nobody wins in a MAD situation just as everybody actually lost during the cold war, and I am fed up to the back teeth with large corporations using software patents as economic weapons to destroy competitors.....Software is mathematics in my book and should never have ever been patented. |
| jdixon Oct 06, 2010 7:08 AM EDT |
> Whatever, nobody wins in a MAD situation... Hopefully Google agrees with you, and is willing to prove that point to Oracle in court. > Software is mathematics in my book and should never have ever been patented. Of course. But courts haven't been willing to agree. Who knows, Google may be willing to take this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and argue that point. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 06, 2010 1:35 PM EDT |
> Software is mathematics I'm reminded of PGP and the US _government_ patent on the RSA algorithm. Mathematics, patented. |
| caitlyn Oct 06, 2010 3:01 PM EDT |
I've submitted the Groklaw piece for LXer so hopefully it will be picked up. The courts have been very willing to uphold all sorts of interesting patents. I've read arguments both ways on this case. I wouldn't make any assumptions about the outcome if this goes to trial. |
| gus3 Oct 06, 2010 4:14 PM EDT |
Google arguing against software patents would violate the "clean hands doctrine" which they brought up against Oracle. Basically, it says you can't have it both ways: you can't argue against legal point N, while engaging in activity which relies on legal point N. |
| jdixon Oct 06, 2010 9:31 PM EDT |
> Basically, it says you can't have it both ways: you can't argue against legal point N, while engaging in activity which relies on legal point N. Unless Google has initiated a patent lawsuit against another company, I doubt that would apply. I suspect the court would buy the argument that the patents were for defensive purposes. But IANAL, as Caitlyn says, you can never make any assumptions. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!