

Google's expert report in Oracle case explains complexities in plain English - grellas
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110907141407472

======
espinchi
In this impressive document, Prof Astrachan also shows that he has an infinite
patience. He explains (with great analogies) a huge pile of concepts along the
way, which wouldn't be necessary for a technical audience.

The points 13-16 explain in 400 words that even if

    
    
      public static int abs(int i) { return i >= 0 ? i : -i; }
    

and

    
    
      public static int abs(int a) { return (a < 0) ? -a : a; }
    

look similar, they are as different as two different implementations of
_Math.abs_ can be. Someone that has never seen a line of code could wonder how
come they both use the words public, static, etc.

~~~
teach
Prof. Astrachan has written a lot of the material for the high-school Advanced
Placement computer science course (which I teach), and I agree that he has a
rare gift and we (in the APCS community) are blessed to have his involvement.

------
tsycho
Wow. This is an extremely well written document. I wish other lawyers would
write in such "plain" English.

Assuming (hopefully) that this leads to a better understanding of the claims
by judges, juries as well as the media, do you folks see this document
significantly helping Google in this case?

~~~
reemrevnivek
This isn't a neutral report, it's quite obvious that Prof. Astrachan is taking
Google's side. If the judges, juries, and media understand the document in
such a way to agree with the various claims:

> Google’s implementation of the APIs at issue is not virtually identical or
> substantially similar to Oracle’s implementation

> The various Java versions that Oracle alleges were infringed contain the
> same APIs as earlier versions or versions for other operating systems

> Parameter names are functional and not creative

> The organization of packages is functional and does not contain creative
> expression

> C#, like Java, is unprotectable, and is also available as an open
> specification and implementation

> Oracle’s analysis of the files at issue does not discuss their qualitative
> or quantitative importance, with one exception that is incorrect

I think it's safe to say that it would help Google significantly.

~~~
0x12
I think it would still be possible for a neutral report to end up helping
either party significantly. After all, objective truth may be to someone's
disadvantage as well as to their advantage. The whole point of a lawsuit is to
try to convince a judge that 'your version' of the objective truth is
supportive of your claims. When a neutral party ends up disagreeing with you
that will help the other side.

In this situation that's likely not the case (since Astrachan is paid by
Google it is clear on whose side he is), but most of what he writes strikes me
as quite neutral rather than explicitly usable against Oracle. Google could
find itself on the blunt end of those arguments just as easily in another
lawsuit. These observations seem to use the evidence from the case as an
illustration of a much more general case.

------
yonran
I wonder why the Sun implementations of the examples from java.lang and
java.util, which are distributed with the JDK, are labeled "HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL" and redacted.

------
fleitz
Car analogy FTW!

~~~
Natsu
There was an article about how 90%+ or something of the world doesn't know
what crtl-c & ctrl-v do. I wonder if the jury (or the judge) will understand
that part?

But at least, maybe, they'll understand that all cars give us a steering
wheel, brake pedal, gas pedal and shifter even though the car companies don't
copy each others' schematics.

------
raymondh
Section 59 has a nice shout-out to Python's TimSort. Nice!

