Oracle vs Google

In 2006, Sun released it’s final version of Java as ‘open source software’. In 2010, Oracle purchased Java and described itself as the “steward of Java’s open source movement with a commitment to fostering a community of participants.” The components that make Java ‘open’ are known as ‘application programming interfaces’ (APIs). They allow participants to extend Java functionality without going back and either replicating or changing it. Most apps running on Facebook today are written this way. It’s what allows them to plug into different platforms across the net. On May 7 Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement because it used API’s to extend Java to work on Android devices. Now, did Oracle go back and declare Java API’s proprietary ..? If so, non-public APIs would make it a closed system. If not, a public API referencing non-public software really isn’t open anymore either, now is it ?

Traveler vs inept bureaucracy

How do you exceed ‘unlimited lifetime miles’ on airline travel? Apparently when the ‘elite revenue team’ (of former ticketing agents) decides you’re doing something ‘fraudulent by nature’. This means it complies with the rules .. but smells fishy. I suppose you could say it doesn’t pass the test of reasonableness. In the case of Steven Rothstein [ link ] who paid for a pass that included a companion seat; it comes down to your definition of a companion. But who determines who and who isn’t a companion when the contract doesn’t spell it out..? And if the contract doesn’t spell it out ..where do they get off calling it ‘fraud’? Because he makes frequently trips to Hawaii with different companions ..? Perhaps helps a college student he meets at the airport trying to get home for the holidays? Now if he sold those seats that would be one thing, however, this isn’t the case. He never charged them a cent. No, the way you charge him with exceeding the ‘unlimited miles’ program is by getting a federal court judge to agree that he was doing something ‘fraudulent by nature’. But, by nature ..that’s an indeterminant and subjective charge. Sounds more like the airline was looking for an excuse to terminate his contract, which he paid $350,000 for in 1987. They were doing it under the cover of ‘fraudulent by nature’ hoping to avoid being counter sued for breach of contract. But I can’t imagine anyone paying $350,000 being fooled or intimidated by that. No, this has got to be a case of customer vs. inept bureaucracy. Even I’ve been there before.

Persecution by implication

Regarding the story of Gary Klein ‘under a cloud of suspicion’ ~>[ link ]

The implication: Attorneys for the family of the deceased (Rina Klein) suggest that the husband (Gary Klein) killed her. They don’t come right out and say so ..nor have murder charges been filed. What attorneys do say is:

“He disparaged her in public ..”
“She was planning a divorce but says she was afraid he would kill her if he ever found out.”
“She told her sister that he was cruel and went around saying that if he wanted he could kill her and no one would find out how it happened.”

They never actually say he killed her or even threatened to. The wife was a successful Hollywood attorney but hadn’t worked in nine years due to depression. Her family is suing the husband to dis-inherit him in probate court ..and gain custody of his children in family court. 

Public record: Doctors certify that she died of lupus. A report by a medical examiner says “..a combination of amphetamine, anti-depressants and lupus medication may have also contributed.” The husband says he knew about her medical condition but nothing about the alleged divorce plans. She never filed for divorce nor is there any evidence that she ever planned to. Just hearsay from her family. Nor is there any evidence that he ever threatened or abused her. Just unsubstantiated claims by attorneys. 

Persecution by implication: I don’t think this amounts to murder. I do believe it is a case of pragmatic implications, which are of indeterminate truth-value ..intended to keep an investigation open and continue persecuting someone for financial gain. Attorneys routinely use pragmatic implications to suggest things without actually saying them .. hoping listeners will fill in the blanks. Attorneys for OJ Simpson actually got a jury to believe police conspired to frame their client by merely asking if they’d ever known someone who had experienced police brutality (common in all-black neighborhoods). They never asked about police frame-ups (because they’re exceedingly rare). Reference: Bugliosi ‘Outrage’ epilogue 340-342 [ link ]