|
|
|
|
|
|
by pwdisswordfish5
1982 days ago
|
|
|
This is a perplexing response. Oracle's case against Google is about copyright infringement. On that point, you are correct, but that's where your comments part from reality. Oracle in its case against Google is not arguing that "Java wasn't open-source at the time Google copied it". Oracle in its case against Google is not arguing that there was "a specific license explicitly disallowing mobile use". You on the other hand are arguing these things. That's where the problem lies: you're asserting infringement based on two fact claims that don't even match what Oracle's legal team presented to the courts. (For that reason, your remark that "Everything else is irrelevant" is just bizarre and ironic—it's your comments here that are irrelevant... _None_ of the things you're saying are what the case is actually about.) Here are some simple questions: to what extent does your knowledge of Oracle v. Google originate from secondary analysis and commentary about the case vs. direct knowledge (e.g. the briefs and testimony provided by Oracle and those who testified)? Do you have any firsthand experience reviewing the material that was presented in/to the courts? This is the problem with Internet peanut galleries. The answer to the last question can be solid "no", and yet commenters are undeterred from spewing nonsense from their gut that has no basis in reality. |
|
|
But if you have done so, at least you as a presumably secondhand information source, could you give me a rebuttal on why am I wrong?