The copyright ability question in this case. Oracle has a copyright to the computer code in java. Right to the functions and oracle cannot leverage the copyright to create patent rights. Under their murder doctrine there is no copyright protection for computer code that is the only way to perform those functions. Java developers have the right to use certain commands to create applications for google, android platforms. To work the commands require google to reduce a set of declarations from java fc. Because there are no substitutes oracle is claiming the exclusive right not merely to what the declaration is saying but to what they do. That is not a copyright, it is a patent right. Reusingtice of interface is critical to commuter software. Reusing the declaration allowed developers to write billions of creative applications that are used by more than a billion people. Those policy questions are almost academic because the issue is not one this court would find fair use. The standard of
Professor in the 1930s through the 1950s, decided to give about the meaning of life. On the last day of his business law class one spring. It was such a success it turned into an annual division at stanford for many years, until he retired. In 2008,vived supported by a generous gift to the office of religious life by the foundation for global community, which established the henry and Amelia Rathbun fund for exploring what leads to a Meaningful Life. Each year, a visiting fellow is selected to come to stanford to deliver this lecture and spend time with our faculty, students, and staff. In a busy world, and in a time of change in our country, this lecture provides us a welcome moment for self reflection and moral inquiry. We are so fortunate this year to have Ruth Bader Ginsburg as our visiting fellow. Her by anotherw moniker, as the notorious rbg. [applause] that name got its start several puts ago in a tumblr together by an admiring law student, and it took off. Today, Justice Ginsbu
Husband irvings are here i was by her personal journey and undying faith in humanity. I also learned she and Justice Ginsburg when we moved to washington, it seems natural to organize the conversation between these two extraordinary women. Iat opportunity arose when had the privilege of attending a small private dinner. She had Justice Ginsburg with and i asked her if this if this group would be interested in a conversation. It became this threesome. It would not have been possible had Justice Ginsburg not reached out to doris. This evening is the result of the support of many extraordinary women who pull their resources together. , the three justices, of course, misses wilhelmina holiday. She has the only Museum Dedicated to a woman in the arts in the world. Judy woodruff, icon in journalism. Misses bennett, a force of nature in washington. My friend connie milstein. And many, many others. This evening, this conversation is truly historic and we have gathered three women from three s
Check us out at our website. Host from the perspective you take, when you consider someone like Amy Coney Barrett constantly possibly going to the Supreme Court, what are the concerns from the stands she takes on interpreting the constitution . First of all, i think that its improper to even be considering a nominee right now when we are in the middle of an election. Not just an election year, the election is happening right now with half a million ballots already cast in early voting states. Not to mention that we are in the middle of the pandemic and the senate is taking away an important time that should be devoted to dealing with those virgin, crucial issues in these next five weeks. Aside, i thinkt theres a real legitimacy question when you have the public voting right now for the president and the senate, the folks thatof the deal with nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice, and if there is a lack of public space in the way that process works, there is going to be
Mr. Goldstein mr. Chief justice may please the court with that copyright ability question in this case and into the computer work that not the patent so that means the public not oracle has the right to function and oracle cannot leverage the copyright there is no copyright protection for computer code to perform those functions here Java Software developers have the right to create applications for the smart android platform but they require google to reuse the exact set of declarations it is intermittently claiming the rights not just to what the declaration says is not a copyright it is a patent right. And in the modern Interoperable Software here reusing to rewrite creative applications that are used more than 1 billion people those policy questions are almost academic not whether this court would find fair use the much narrower question they could find fair use in oracle now regrets the demand that the jury way all the evidence and decide fair use that has no subsidiary findings a