Judge to Oracle: A High Schooler Could Write rangeCheck 478
mikejuk writes with an update on the Oracle vs Google Trial. From the article: "One month into the Oracle v Google trial, Judge William Alsup has revealed that he has, and still does, write code. Will this affect the outcome? I think so! After trying to establish that the nine lines in rangeCheck that were copied saved Google time in getting Android to market the lawyer making the case is interrupted by the judge which indicates he at least does understand how straightforward it would be to program rangeCheck from scratch: 'rangeCheck! All it does is make sure the numbers you're inputting are within a range, and gives them some sort of exceptional treatment. That witness, when he said a high school student could do it — ' And the lawyer reveals he doesn't: 'I'm not an expert on Java — this is my second case on Java, but I'm not an expert, and I probably couldn't program that in six months.' Perhaps every judge should be a coding judge — it must make the law seem a lot simpler..."
From yesterday; the Oracle lawyer was attempting to argue that Google profited by stealing rangeCheck since it allowed them to get to market faster than they would have had they wrote it from scratch. Groklaw, continuing its detailed coverage as always, has the motions filed today.
5 Seconds (Score:5, Funny)
From yesterday; the Oracle lawyer was attempting to argue that Google profited by stealing rangeCheck since it allowed them to get to market faster than they would have had they wrote it from scratch.
Because 5 seconds make all the difference.
Re:5 Seconds (Score:5, Funny)
Re:5 Seconds (Score:4, Insightful)
5 seconds? I'd say 5-10 minutes. Searching for that algorithm probably would take a lot longer than coding it...
Re:5 Seconds (Score:5, Funny)
5 seconds? I'd say 5-10 minutes. Searching for that algorithm probably would take a lot longer than coding it...
...you ARE aware who the defendant in this case is, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Testing it on the other hand--that's the expensive part.
Re:5 Seconds (Score:4, Insightful)
If you go into testing not assuming you're doing it wrong, you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
boolean function rangeCheck(
const int value,
const int min,
const int max)
{
Doh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:5 Seconds (Score:5, Informative)
More 7 minutes tryiung to figure out why the comparasion operators fucked up a block of what should be a plain text block. X-(
You've used <tt> - it's not a "plain text block", it's a "monospaced span". It can still contain HTML formatting inside.
Slashdot actually gives you the ability to conveniently format pieces of code and such - that's <ecode>. This treats any < and > as verbatim characters inside the element, except for those that make up its closing tag.
Re: (Score:3)
boolean function rangeCheck(
const int value,
const int min,
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking a bottle or a coupon drive, myself.
Mistrial! (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously this competent, experienced jurist should have recused himself because of this conflict of interest.
Re:Mistrial! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're Oracle, and you're claiming that "checking if an integer is within a range is your super top secret IP that Google stole" it is. Their lawyer was outright saying this would be difficult to write.
A judge with a working BS meter is never a good thing for the plaintiff -- I believe you missed the inherent sarcasm.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Competence and resistance to manipulation conflict with the interests of the plaintiff in winning the case even with a complete lack of legal validity.
See also "I object on the basis that it makes me look bad!"
Re: (Score:3)
You're taking the argument too far. Essentially by your standards a judge who did anything related to murder investigation could not preside over a murder case. A judge that ever sold a house could not preside over a real estate dispute. Etc.
It's inane. Judge cannot preside over a case in which he has a significant interest over, such as a murder case he had to experience personally or witness. But not all murder cases in general.
Same here. Judge who understands coding could and should preside over a case t
6 Months for Range Check?!?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:6 Months for Range Check?!?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
English as a second language summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading that summary made me feel like I was taking crazy pills. So many mixed tenses. Could someone clean that shit up for readability?
Re: (Score:3)
If I can't parse a sentence after three tries I give up.
I gave up trying to read the summary... I suppose there's no sense in lamenting the state of the editing that (doesn't) get done on submissions though.
I'm going to patent i=0 (Score:2, Informative)
In for loops, and anyone who uses it has to pay me lots of money. I'll let them use it and as soon as they start making money I'll show up at their door to collect their soul.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, when you did that, you violated this patent [theonion.com], so all the proceeds of your patent have to go to those guys.
Good News, Everyone! (Score:2)
This is good news: Because obviously Oracle hired mentally challenged lawyers.
Not only is what their lawyer said obvious hyperbole, but it is totally irrelevant. I don't care how much time it would take for a non-programmer to do it: how long does it take a real programmer to do it.
The answer to that is of course on the order of seconds, since validating input is something every programmer has done thousands of times.
What does it matter (Score:4, Informative)
What does it matter how easy the code was to write? And if it was so easy why did google need to copy it?
I tried to submit this over the weekend but it wasn't selected. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/ [wired.com]
As someone who really likes Java and Google I don't like this lawsuit one bit.
Sun created Java and mostly gave it away for free except for the mobile part which they were licensing to create revenue. Sun and Google couldn't come to terms regarding licensing and Google decided to just make it themselves.
Sun didn't seem to care, or didn't have the money/will to fight it. Then comes Oracle.
Please resolve this amicably soon. I don't like it when mommy and daddy fight.
Re: (Score:3)
What does it matter how easy the code was to write?
It matters in determining whether or not the copyright infringement in any way helped Google. Oracle is trying to claim that Google got to market faster because they copied the code; but if the code is so simple that it could be written as quickly as copied, that argument basically falls apart.
And if it was so easy why did google need to copy it?
I am not even convinced that Google copied those 9 lines. They do not do something particularly unique, and we are only talking about 9 lines -- 3 of which are generic things like braces. It would be pretty eas
The eight decompiled files (Score:3)
Because it goes directly to the claims that it infringing it was the source of a substantial quantity of Google's profits.
Re:The eight decompiled files (Score:4, Funny)
It doesn't really matter who decompiled the files. The point is that they were decompiled and copied.
If I hire you to go buy me a car and you do so I pay you for it. If it turns out you stole the car, should I get to keep it?
That also leaves the question of whether that contractor, or other contractors had violated Sun/Oracle copyrights in less obvious ways.
You have the analogy all messed up. Google has already stopped using this code, so in your analogy they've already stopped using the car and given it up.
Instead, what happened was Google hired Noser to buy them a car, and in the contract specified that the Noser was absolutely not allowed to steal the car. Noser stole it anyway, and when Google found out they stopped using it. Later, Google was sued by Oracle, who didn't actually own the car when it was stolen but bought it later. This suit wasn't to stop Google from using the car any longer, but to seek billions in damages for misuse of the car during a time that Google thought they owned it (due to deception by Noser) when Oracle didn't actually own it, either.*
Re: (Score:3)
Oh for fuck's sakes. It's a range check function. Jesus, you'd think it contained the cure for cancer the way Oracle goes on. Even if there are damages, they are going to be absurdly small, so small that any victory at this point for Oracle is very much Pyrrhic. Google has won the important war.
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue this is a legitimate practice, as the code for that particular function should no
Re:The eight decompiled files (Score:5, Funny)
I've never heard of the subtroutine concept! What's that, when a bigger fish calls a smaller fish to perform a function required by the bigger fish?
Colossal waste... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle and Google waste money on lawyers on such silly functions instead of spending the money on building more useful technology.
We as users are the only losers in this non-sensical fight.
Contest (Score:5, Funny)
Ok, let's have a contest. Gather a bunch of high schoolers who have some idea how to program in Java, give them the spec for rangeCheck, and see how long it takes them to write it. The winner takes the prize equal to the damages Oracle is asking for. Bonus points if completed in less than 15 minutes.
Misleading title -- Judge didn't say that! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Misleading title -- Judge didn't say that! (Score:4, Informative)
He didn't say the part about "a high schooler", but he did say something that pretty much amounts to the same thing:
"I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. "
Re: (Score:3)
The judge makes no such claim
The judge most certainly did make the statement that the rangeCheck code was trivial:
Caleb Garling tweets: "Alsup says he's been writing code since this trial started. He's written rangeCheck code a "100 times". Incredulous Oracle claiming damages...."
The judge didn't say that a high school student could do it (that was a witness, as the judge mentioned), but he did say it was trivial, and implied that he agrees with the witness:
"Judge: rangeCheck! All it does is make sure the numbers you're inputting are w
Quite right (Score:5, Insightful)
There is zero inventive value in that function. It is a completely standard approach that everybody writing containers has used hundreds of times.
This Judge seems to get it.
"I probably couldn't program that in six months." (Score:5, Funny)
A truly exceptional lawyer.
Re: (Score:3)
I know absolutely jack shit about programming, but I am fairly certain that if I went to school for six months to learn how to program that it would be trivial for me to write that function.
The concept is just so simple that even I get it.
The juicy bits (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you who don't want to read all the transcript, this is what the judge said:
Oracle: I think the law with respect to infringer's profits, rather than damages, only requires us to show that there was a product that contained infringing material and that the product produced revenue, and then the burden shifts to the other side. If I'm wrong about that, I still think it's possible to demonstrate a nexus by showing that speed was very important to Google in getting Android out, and by copying they accelerated that.
Judge: We heard the testimony of Mr. Bloch. I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?
Oracle: I want to come back to rangeCheck.
Judge: rangeCheck! All it does is make sure the numbers you're inputting are within a range, and gives them some sort of exceptional treatment. That witness, when he said a high school student could do it--
Re:The juicy bits (Score:4, Interesting)
It's so beautiful, it makes me want to cry... We should have it carved in a great stone monolith for all to see.
If only this judge had been around when SCO was trying to claim ownership to the Linux scheduler.
No wonder Gore lost (Score:5, Funny)
Re:none other than (Score:3)
I wanna know whether David Bowie could programs those nine lines faster than David Boies.
Been waiting for this to hit /. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been following the Oracle vs Google trial on other websites. Not sure why /. hasn't been covering it routinely. It's a pretty big deal not just to Google , but there are some issues being judged which may affect the programming community in general, down the road.
Alsup seemed to be a little perturbed with some of Oracle's ploys to captialize on the assumed "programming ignorance" of the jury. I haven't seen the RangeCheck code, but from Alsups statement it sounds like Oracle is trying to make a case from egregiously far-reaching evidence. One which basically means Oracle doesn't, and never had, much of a case to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
if (fromIndex > toIndex)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
if (fromIndex < 0)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
that was far too kind (Score:5, Insightful)
It's well within the grasp of most middle schoolers, and it wouldn't take long to find an elementary school child who could write it ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, you are stupid enough to take a Judge's dismissive comment to the plantiffs as an absolutely specific assessment on the population's programming skills. Perhaps you are the moron here?
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fore chrissakes, anyone who has been writing any degree of code for more than a few years has implemented a range check function, and whatever the language C, C++, Java, C#, BASIC, 80x86 assembler, they all basically look the same. If this is truly what Oracle's case boils down to, then they literally have nothing, and this comes out looking no different than what SCO's claims against Linux ended up being. It's fucking ludicrous. To claim that somehow a nine line range check function gave Google some vast market edge to my mind breaks credibility. I'm guessing this is pointing pretty heavily towards Oracle being handed their balls on a platter over this.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oracle's lawyers are being brilliant at what most lawyers do well: make insanely stupid arguments in order to run their clock as long as possible. It's not about justice. It's about that new yacht Oracle's head lawyer is saving up for. Those nine lines of code might be worth only $20, but the lawyers are making a killing.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is exactly why Boies says he couldn't program it in 6 months. He needs more billable hours than that! Only chumps like poor high schoolers would write it more quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
He knows. I know. Everybody knows.
The point is that if Orible lose, Larry's armada will sally forth and sink the shyster's new toy.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:4, Informative)
Please. Boies was the lead lawyer in the Microsoft monopoly trial - against Microsoft. He was one of the best trial lawyers to break up illegal monopolies then.
Lawyers argue for the side that is paying for them. Just like everyone else - you do the work you're paid to do.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:4, Funny)
To tell you the true, this gives us a clear hint about Oracle's future.
SCO did exactly the same thing in the past - but, honestly, I think SCO's lawyers did a better job.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Interesting)
To tell you the true, this gives us a clear hint about Oracle's future.
SCO did exactly the same thing in the past - but, honestly, I think SCO's lawyers did a better job.
In what way? Oracle is the 2nd biggest software house on the planet, the clear leader in several verticals and makes and/or sells literally hundreds of products. Which of these things in even a remote way, describes SCO?
Re: (Score:3)
bool rangeCheck(int value, int lowerBound, int upperBound)
{
return value >= lowerBound && value <= upperBound;
}
So, Oracle is suggesting that Google would rather copy something like this to save time than spend the thirty seconds to type it out themselve? OK, sure, the Java one is 9 lines long, not one line long, because it has some exception handling, but seriously...
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Funny)
You sir, are incorrect. By copying this software that would have taken a lawyer 6 months to write, they were able to gain an unfair 32 seconds on the rightful coder Oracle.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Funny)
I have the feeling that the judge may even order them run though a meat grinder before returning them to Oracle on said platter.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Informative)
J2ME is a pretty feature-limited version of Java. It certainly was never going to be suitable on the mid to high end smartphones. Pretty much every smartphone out there now is perfectly capable of running the full-blown JRE out of the box. In other words, with or without Dalvek, mobile Java editions are a fading proposition.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:4, Funny)
Sort of like wml. Before it could fix bayonets and form a defensive square Moore's cavalry had ridden right over it.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Interesting)
J2ME is a pretty feature-limited version of Java
Well, having spent a number of years watching J2ME, I'd say the problem wasn't that J2ME was feature limited. I had things I could do even in MIDP that were quite useful, to say nothing of the Personal Basis Profile.
As an early app developer, we had two concerns with J2ME: how to get our app in our users' hands, not getting tied to a particular carrier (and thus losing access to corporate customers who used different carriers) or even handset. You got your J2ME SDK from the handset vendor and the handset vendors were the mobile carriers' slaves. The same phone would have different capabilities on different carriers because they deleted features the carriers didn't want (for price positioning or because the features conflicted with the carriers' laughable ambitions to become content companies).
When Apple came along with the iPhone, they did three important things. First, they didn't take any crap from the carrier (AT&T), they defined the product themselves. Second, they made it possible to run an app on any iOS device (originally just the iPhone, but later the iPod Touch too). Third, they had a simple mechanism for getting your app into the customer's hands. That made it possible to create a successful product for iOS in a way it had never been possible in J2ME.
I believe the fact that it Apple made it easy to sell apps for iOS is what is responsible for the success of attracting developers to the platform early on. It wasn't some kind of Apple UI secret sauce, although touch screens standard was a big advance. J2ME could have been an entrenched mobile standard years before the iPhone came out, if Sun had only taken steps to create a market (not necessarily an app store) for developers to target.
Then Android came along, and it was everything I'd ever hoped for: well thought out, robust, open source, feature-rich, vendor independent, even *app store* independent. But by then I was out of the business.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A high schooler? (Score:4, Funny)
And the other half coulda banged out the code in binary using a toy xylaphone in pre-school.
Re: (Score:2)
So was I, and I'm an American. Also, how old are you?
Can you say everyone, or even the majority, of those in your country started programming at seven? What about in older age groups? ... No? How stupid are people in your country?
If you don't need to, or aren't interested in it, not being able to program isn't a bad thing. There are reasons for the whole 'justice is blind [and ignorant]" in the US. In some cases, it certainly will bite us, but in others, it also helps because it prevents bias from preconcep
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the judge's statement is even a half-truth, the code in question checks a number, and passes it somewhere if it's a good number.
That is what all goddamn code does. A dumb American high schooler could accomplish that in about twenty minutes if you refused to let them leave until they did, because if you aren't doing that, you haven't written a program! A seven year old could probably do it faster; they haven't "learned" yet that they're dumb.
The lawyer is a disingenuous jackass who assumed that the judge, like him, would see a piece of code and assume it's an arcane fucking ritual without even trying to parse it. He deserves derision.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Insightful)
For those interested: (from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940683 [ycombinator.com])
From OpenJDK:
private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
if (fromIndex > toIndex)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
if (fromIndex arrayLen)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
}
From Google:
private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
if (fromIndex > toIndex)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
if (fromIndex arrayLen)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
}
}
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A high schooler? (Score:4, Funny)
You idiot! You just caused $2.6bn of harm to Oracle!
Re:A high schooler? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nowadays the recommended method of coding is to use variable names and function names that are self-descriptive. Given that, it seems to me that the code is pretty much the natural way anyone might write it. Google did say that they copied it, but really, how else might one write it? It's definitely the level of a first year programming course. The only interesting bits are (IIRC) the use of a ToIndex that is one more than the length, to eliminate a bit of arithmetic in the loop. So were they inclined to dissemble, Google could have claimed that it's just a coincidence.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Informative)
Espically when you consider that the programmer who "copied it" for Google is the programmer who originally wrote it for Sun....
Re: (Score:3)
Nowadays the recommended method of coding is to use variable names and function names that are self-descriptive. Given that, it seems to me that the code is pretty much the natural way anyone might write it.
It seems like someone would copy something like this because it's so simple enough that you would end up writing the same thing, so instead of spending the minute to do that you might as well just copy it and move on. Sort of like how Javascript lacks an Array.indexOf method to find a certain item in the array. I could spend the minute or two to write and test that loop myself, or I could spend 30 seconds looking it up on Google and using what I find there. Either way it's going to be the same thing, a l
Re: (Score:3)
Slashcode ate that all up. F you /. my reply looks like shite also because of that and I can't be bothered to figure out how to post code without it being de-htmlized. Fix that, right after you fix UTF-8 mkay? I checked the link, in psuedocode its:
fromIndex has to be from 0 to toIndex
toIndex has to be from fromIndex to arrayLength
Anybody else see a bug? I donno their array implementation, but it looks like they are zero indexed arrays while also allowing a "array's length" equal to the to index value.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a range check function. They all look largely the same.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it's an exact 1:1 copy - the guy who wrote it gave it to both Sun AND Android. And if you've been following the trial, Sun never registered a copyright on that specific function.
Oracle is *SO* screwed.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:4, Informative)
You haven't had to register copyrights in the US for decades. Ever heard of the Berne Convention?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How would it not be?
There is nothing creative there. If you had a 100 people do it you would probably get lots of exact copies.
This guy was working at google when he wrote both by the way. Can you now steal your own copyright?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Informative)
The question is whether it is worth anything.
Google says no. Oracle's own expert witnesses said no. The judge - who has apparently revealed he is a programmer - says no. Oracle are arguing it's worth millions.
Someone is desperate here, and its not Google
Oracle surrenders? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, its not the "the same guy wrote it for Oracle and later, Google". It wasn't written twice.
Its that the Google employee who wrote it on his own time both included it in the Android source tree and contributed to to the OpenJDK (including the required copyright assignment.)
Actually, Oracle's pretty much given up on that, too. In a joint stipulation filed today, Oracle has agreed to waive both jury trial and its claim for actual damages and infringers profits on the copyright claims for which liability has already been found if the API SSO issue isn't resolved in its favor, and accept statutory damages for rangeCheck and the decompiled files.
Bloch worked (works!) for Google, not Noser (Score:3)
Bzzt. Wrong.
No, not at all. Josh Bloch worked for Google as Chief Java Architect (not for Noser) when he wrote rangeCheck (and still works for Google in the same role.) You seem to be confusing rangeCheck with the 8 decompiled files, which were done by Noser Engineering AG. Those are the two independent issues on which copyright infringement has been found in Oracle v. Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Part of it is, part of it isn't.
Well, he certainly claims not to be a "Java expert"; whether he is a coder or not is, I don't think, a point on which there is much basis to make a conclusion, nor is it particularly relevant in any case.
No, its not (well, not in the copyright portion of the trial) because ideas aren't protected by copyright, and not even O
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Funny)
And you wrote that comment without once referring to PHP. Bravo!
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, they could be negatively affected if all those proprietary languages which are locking them in cannot be re-implemented under the force of law. Those proprietary languages right now have to stay competitive knowing that high prices would encourage an alternative to enter the market. To put it another way, if Microsoft doubled the price of Windows, they might retain enough users to make more money, but they'd also risk a flight to WINE, and I guarantee you a lot of those potential customers,
Re: (Score:3)
What's logical and what's legal per the law ain't ever exactly been similar.
Re: (Score:3)
Because of the complexity of the case and the amount of time being spent on discussing programming concepts, the judge decided to take some personal time and learn how to program. In other words, he learned how to code while he was adjudicating the case.
I am impressed by somebody in a position like his taking that effort, and it shows not only the intelligence of the judge but that he was trying to apply the principles he was learning about in the course of the trial. I don't think there is any indication
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not being able to write code doesn't mean you're stupid.
However, equating them means you're ignorant and arrogant.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know right.
Why I bet that half of the population of America is below average even.
Re:A high schooler? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No need to be so pedantic. Regardless of the binary-ness of the situation, there is still always an analog component. For something to become binary there needs to be a threshold, a majority has it's threshold set to 50%. If one then passes the threshold, but barely, then one could say that there is "barely a majority". This concept can be extended to vast majority (i.e. ~75%) and what I meant with vast vast majority is that some percentage (well over 50%) of Americans fall into that category. Probably asym
Re: (Score:3)
There are all kinds of majorities defined for things like voting for laws in parlament. Some types of laws require bigger majority, one could say a vast majority, to be approved. A programmer should be aware of these real-world situations and code appropiately.
Re:then why didn't they write it (Score:4, Interesting)
It's such a short and simple function that you could conceivably get two different people to write it and they'd end up with exactly the same code. The code reads:
There's nothing you could really remove or change about it. Sure, you could put the checks in a different order, but it wouldn't fundamentally alter the code.
Re:then why didn't they write it (Score:5, Insightful)
Because to do it differently would be to make the code worse. Go to your local hardware store, and look at the hammers. Despite many different manufacturers, they all look and function basically the same. The reason why is because mankind worked out the most efficient hammer design a long time ago and there is nothing left to innovate there.
Imagine how retarded competitor's hammers would have to be designed to get around a patent like the one Oracle is asserting here. This is why there is so much folly in patenting something so elementary, like 'slide to unlock', or a range check.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Misreading on several points.
Your post ws posted at 2:57pm on Wednesday, May 16; the article you link to was posted on (and transcribes court discussions that occurred on) Tuesday, May 15. So, "today" probably isn't the word you are looking for.
More importantly, you've confused Oracle's lawyer with Google's. I've broadened the excerpt that you provided to include the part that shows who is talking (material that was excluded from your excerpt is bolded):
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oracle is abusing the courts (Score:5, Insightful)
This case is about how Oracle can monetize Java. They spent 6 billion dollars on Sun and what Google is doing without direct compensation to Oracle devalues Java. This is the first step of many by Oracle to force profits from their purchase. Ellison is fairly adept at making money, and doesn't seem concerned about whether or not he is liked. This first case of making the Sun purchase pay for itself is not going in his favor currently.