|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
That sounds plausible. I have been wrestling with a concept raised by someone
else, for some time. I can explain with a short quote,
'Harmony did not have a license from Oracle, thus the law of agency put Google
in the gun for Harmony's copying.'
I wonder if the jury has to decide whether Oracle saying 'Google copied from us'
is factual or whether Google saying 'we copied from Harmony' is the truth.
If the jury say that just the 11 files were copied then that goes forward to the
damages stage and the judge takes over with the law of agency and the
copyrightability of the API Specification. Even then, Google can claim that not
even the 11 files were copied by Google, but by another third party.
I find this fascinating. Am I too far gone?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|