Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 16    Average: 2.5/5]
15 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9284
Rating: 2.5
Category: Tech
Date: 06/01/12 11:24 AM

15 Responses to Oracle Vs. Google: Well Done, America

  1. Profile photo of Langer
    Langer Male 18-29
    394 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 11:24 am
    Link: Oracle Vs. Google: Well Done, America - No really, I`m serious... you didn`t f*uck it up for the rest of us this time
  2. Profile photo of swoop408
    swoop408 Male 18-29
    1754 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 11:32 am
    No clicky click. Not working.
  3. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 11:34 am
    *Clicky-Clicky* no Worky-Worky.
  4. Profile photo of MacGuffin
    MacGuffin Female 30-39
    2602 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 11:39 am
    I don`t see what`s so great about a judge setting aside a jury`s verdict for the benefit of one of the world`s richest organisations. It only goes to show what a farce the system is: even if you can get a jury to agree with you, a judge will overrule them and come up with the `right` verdict if you`re powerful enough.
  5. Profile photo of leesah
    leesah Female 18-29
    1566 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 11:53 am
    "I don`t see what`s so great about a judge setting aside a jury`s verdict"

    The jury and this judge were voting on two different things. The jury was SUPPOSED to wait for the judge`s verdict on a copyright claim, which the jury then based their decision on. The jury went ahead anyway, basing their decision on the false assumption that Google was breaking copyright laws. However, the judge in charge of that case ruled Oracle`s copyright claim was too broad (and it simply was, something you`d undoubtedly be aware of had you bothered to read the article) thus rendering the jury`s judgement false.
  6. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 11:58 am
    @MacGuffin,

    The jury largely agreed though. Of the 8 (I think?) claims made by oracle, the jury only really supported two of them, was undecided about one, and disagreed with the rest.
  7. Profile photo of swoop408
    swoop408 Male 18-29
    1754 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    Just read it. I don`t see the issue in the judges ruling. At all.
  8. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    it`s not really a case of

    for i = 1:10

    vs

    do{ i = 1; ... }while(i <= 10)

    (two different pieces of code that perform the exact same function); from what I had read before, Oracle found their code verbatim in Android. Google then changed the code to perform the same functions, and I lost contact with this case because I didn`t ever really care that much.
  9. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    Piss off, with your America comment. Why add an insult.
  10. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 12:15 pm
    I agree with OutWest, I don`t see how an american court ruling has any relevance in the rest of the world.
  11. Profile photo of ScottSerious
    ScottSerious Male 18-29
    5316 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 12:17 pm
    i have no idea what this is about
  12. Profile photo of 8BitHero
    8BitHero Male 18-29
    5414 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm
    So now Oracle are finished? Seeing how they weren`t find much(by Google standards) it`s over now...right?
  13. Profile photo of deputy
    deputy Male 50-59
    449 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 4:15 pm
    @jendrian: Those 9 lines of code were found in a development version of android, wich was not meant for public release. They were used temprorarily and never ended up in the final version of android. That is basically why google was cleared of charges.
  14. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 8:53 pm
    Wouldn`t it be great if they could BOTH lose?
  15. Profile photo of ExtraCredit
    ExtraCredit Male 50-59
    451 posts
    June 1, 2012 at 9:38 pm
    In light of the evidence, this seems like a stunningly ignorant ruling.

Leave a Reply