[Natsu]

While this will not end the case, the fact that Oracle tried to base many of its arguments on something that was not, in fact, true according to their own copyright registrations will utterly destroy the arguments that rely upon that misrepresentation.

So they're going to be in a difficult position trying to salvage their copyright claims. They might manage to do something, but they've got a pretty weak hand here. They wanted to rush this trial and all they did was to trip themselves up.

[Steko]

I think you've bought into the hype here prematurely. The odds that this issue will be in any way significant to the outcome of this case seem low.

Did you read Oracle's reply[1] or just the caricature at the original link?

"Google argues that the entire Java platform is necessarily the “work as a whole” because that is what was registered with the Copyright Office. Courts have soundly rejected that argument.. As explained in Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, supra:

    Defendants contend that plaintiffs' “work” is the entire daily newspaper because their copyright registration covers the paper as a whole rather than any particular article. Thus, they assert, copying an individual article constitutes reproduction of only a small portion of the entire work. This proposition is not supported by the case law. See Texaco, supra, 60 F.3d at 925-26 (copying an entire article from a journal where the copyright registration covered the journal as a whole constituted a copying of the entire work); Hustler Magazine, supra, 796 F.2d at 1155 (finding that “[a] creative work does not deserve less copyright protection just because it is part of a composite work” and holding that the copying of a one-page parody from a 154-page magazine constituted a copying of the entire work); Netcom On-Line II, supra, 923 F.Supp. at 1247 (“although many of Hubbard's lectures, policy statements, and course packets are collected into larger volumes, and registered as a whole, they may still constitute separate works for the purposes of this factor”); Lerma, supra, 1996 WL 633131 at *9 (“we find that the Works at issue in this case are combined in ‘collections' and that each subpart must be considered a ‘single work’ for the purposes of fair use analysis”)."

[1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120426075025438#9...

[alanh]

Not sure why you pasted the quote as code. It takes extreme side-scrolling to read.

[Steko]

Apologies I didn't add any format markup, it must have been code on groklaw.

[Symmetry]

Everything is actually completely stripped of formatting when you paste it into a Hacker News comment box. What happened is that a line beginning with whitespace is treated as code. So when I add a line with " Like so" I get:

  Like so.

[paolopatron]

http://techiest.blogspot.com/

[Natsu]

I read the judge's reaction to the argument, which is more important than what either party has to say. Oracle has tried to have this issue both ways.

And that precedent probably won't do them much good, because the copying here isn't the same as copying whole articles, however much Oracle's lawyers have tried to say otherwise.

[Natsu]

Well, I just read the reports about how it went down. Oracle cut off their foot to save their leg. Then Google showed up with a chainsaw, offering to "help."

So yeah, Oracle's case might be salvageable, but I wouldn't bet on it.