Your point is well taken, so I did some checking. openJDK submissions require that you accept the "Oracle Contributor Agreement" [nee Sun]. From that document:

The first two clauses appear to cover it. The joint ownership clause seems mostly concerned that any submission grants rights to Sun/Oracle to use the code. But, the original submitter retains parallel rights [as long as they don't try to revoke Oracle's right]. The derivative work clause implies that either party may make a derivative work without consulting the other and gets full rights to the new work.

Thus, giving the rangeCheck function to Android is allowed by this agreement under either of these two clauses.

Yes. It was prudent of Alsup to ask the jury to decide this because it removes one of the grounds for appeal (e.g. if he hadn't and subsequently rules that the law is that the API itself [rather than the API document] is copyrightable).

Given that he evinced an interest in the recent EU ruling that a program [even one that is copyrighted] may be dissected (e.g. disassembled) to support clean room recreation, it seems likely he will rule that the API is not copyrightable. That is, if disassembly is okay for clean room, merely reading the API document [a lesser offense] to clean room implement Dalvik would be okay.

To rule that the API itself is copyrightable, would probably make anybody who has ever written a Java program guilty of infringement [if they didn't have an explicit license]. This would have severe negative implications for software development on any platform, open/free or commercial, Java or not.

IANAL, but if this is so, this would indicate the original submitter would be the copyright author for the code ("rangeCheck"). If s/he was not a Sun employee at the time (e.g. the submission was done as free software), s/he would be free to submit to both code bases. This person would be the only person in the world that has such right. Thus, rangeCheck is not even copied from one code base to another. Ergo, even if the code is identical, there is no copyright infringment.

The story also has a link to a [105 page] PDF titled "Silicon Valley's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs". But, it's from 1999 ... I skimmed it. Part history of immigration and some statistics and a few case studies. But, as far as I could tell, it offers no comparison to American entrepreneurs [hence the title, I guess].

The algorithm can probably be retrofitted onto some/most equipment [via a firmware upgrade]. Since it's not a protocol change, it doesn't affect other routers in the path (e.g. mandate that it be implemented as an all-or-nothing). The incentive is that after you charge your premium for QoS, you actually have to deliver it.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/05/oracle-google-judge-asks-for-comment-on-eu-court-ruling.ars

This ruling says that Google was within its rights to reverse engineer Java and create Dalvik (the VM). While you're correct about the possible trademark angle, trademarks are a funny thing.

For one, "java" is a slang term for coffee. This was true before the language. That's why the java logo is a steaming cup of coffee. Thus, because it's a common term, it may not be eligible to be trademarked.

Unlike patents [where you may selectively pursue infringers as you choose without losing any rights], trademarks must be vigorously enforced. You must take legal action against just about anybody using the trademark improperly.

If you don't, you lose the right to the trademark (e.g. Kleenex for tissue, Thermos vs vacuum bottle, Sanka for decaf coffee). All these trademarks/brands allowed a usage (and it only takes one) in a generic way and lost the right to the trademark. That's why aspirin is a trademark [of Bayer Pharmaceuticals] in Europe, but in the U.S., it's a generic term for a pain reliever that any manufacturer may use.

I suspect that Sun/Oracle has been too loose about this and we'll be able to strip them of their trademark readily enough.

BART is a common carrier. You're confusing it with a private business. They're not disputing it because they want to be one to get the safe harbor provisions [which I mentioned in my last message, but you chose not to read].

It's not illegal to buy one. It is illegal to use one unless you have a license. Particularly, if you've set it up incorrectly [and are causing interference], you'll have a representative from your local cell phone company showing up on your doorstep. You must have the consent of the licensee.

The FAQ you cited [cleverly] omitted any reference to legality of operation. You got bamboozled into thinking that just because you can buy one, it's legal to use it. It's also legal to buy a cell phone jammer but it is not legal to use it.

Absolutely I do know what I'm talking about and everything I've said is verifiable on the web if you had taken the time to check it yourself [using a source that is a tad more credible than a site whose sole purpose is to sell you something].

If you provide these services to the general public [which BART did], it is common carrier. Not even BART is disputing this. Their argument is more along the line of the circumstances justified an exception to the rules.

It is illegal for individuals and businesses to install/use cell repeaters. Only a licensed carrier may do this. That is, if you're a business/individual, the carrier/licensee must install/maintain the repeater for you. A rogue repeater subjects the owner to possible equipment forfeiture, fines, and/or imprisonment.

That's because [in all probability] Verizon set up the repeater system for BART.

An outage due to technical reasons/failure is vastly different. Deliberately pulling the plug [because of the potential speech/content] violates basic rules for common carriers.

The reason for this is that common carriers enjoy a "safe harbor" from the actions of their users. That is, if person X decides to kill person Y and uses BART to travel to Y's residence, BART enjoys immunity. Without such immunity, BART would an accomplice before the fact. In exchange for such safe harbor immunity, BART may not discriminate. If it does, it risks losing its common carrier status and exposes it to all sorts of liability.

However, in the above example, if a person Z (rather than BART) transports X to Y's place, Z is an accomplice [because Z is not a common carrier].

This safe harbor is also true for telecommunication carriers [common carriers]. If X uses the carrier's network to discuss/plan the murder of Y with Z, the carrier is not liable for their actions.

A felony if I'm not mistaken.

Uh, no. Cell phone operators [and telcos] are common carriers, subject to Title II regulations, under the Communications Act of 1934. Common carriers [by definition] are prohibited from discriminating service, based on the content of messages (e.g. voice, data). The FCC has complete authority to regulate this matter [from this Act].

Et tu, Brute?