Oracle has a copyright to the computer code, but not a patent. That means that the public, not oracle, has the right to these functions. Oracle cannot leverage its copyright to create pattonlike rights. Specifically, under the merger document there is no copyright protection for computer code that is the only way to perform those functions. Java Software Developers have the right to use certain commands to create applications for googles android smartphone platform. The commands require google to reuse an exact set of code from java se. Because there are no substitutes oracle is claiming the exclusive right to not merely what the declaration is saying, but what the declarations do. That is not a copyright, it is a patent right. Respect to fair use, the longstanding practice of reusing code is write the developers to millions of creative applications that are used by more than one billion people. Those policy questions are academic, the issue is not whether this court would find fair us
Are admonished to give their attention. The court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court. We will her argument for this morning in case 18 956, google versus oracle. Mister goldstein. Mister chief justice and may it please the court. The murder doctrine resolved the copyright issue in this case. Oracle has a copyright to the computer code in java sd but not a patent read that means the public not oracle has the right to its function and oral cannot create patent yrlike rights specifically under the murder doctrine there is no copyright protection for computer code that is theonly way to perform those functions. Your Java Software developers have the right to use certain commands to create applications for googles android smartphone platform but to work, the commands require google to reuse an exact set ofdeclarations from java sd like he fits into a lot. Because there are no substitutes, oracle is impermissibly claiming the exclusive right not merely to wha
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
Sfdph to test all residents in an s. R. O. Within 48 hours of a single case. I would like to be clear that we are not asking to waterdown the legislation or relax rules for s. R. O. S. Our team, who exists to advocate and protect these residents, will continue to deploy onsite testing to a building, when there is concern for interbuilding transmission. And we do a lot of onsite testing in s. R. O. S. At the same time i want to try to explain again why this particular provision is just not an effective strategy. I know that testing is a hotbutton topic. Its a politicized topic, unfortunately, at the national level. And i really want to reiterate if we thought this particular testing strategy, testing all residents in a building after a single case, if we thought that would be effective at preventing outbreaks, we would be all for it. We are aligned in prioritizing and working to protect s. R. O. Residents. The challenge, though, is that s. R. O. S are not closed settings, like a Skilled
Supervisor ahsha safai. Our clerk is miss erica major. Ms. Major, do you have any announcements . Clerk yes. Due to the covid19 health emergency, and to protect Board Members and employees in the public. The Committee Room are closed. However, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. All local, state and federal orders, declarations and directives. Committee members will attend the meeting through video conference, participating as if physically present. Public comment will be available on each item on this agenda both channel 26, 78 or 99 depending on your provider. And sfgovtv. Org are streaming the number across the screen. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. Comments are opportunities to speak. During the Public Comment period, are available by phone by calling 415 6650001. Again the number is 415 6650001. The meeting i. D. Is 146 466 4627. Again thats 146 466 4627. Press pound and pound again. When connected youll hearing the meeting discussion and be