I think a follow up to your question is:
Would the Laws Of Agency allow a
Summary Judgement to occur?
In other words:
Is it a question of Law
that can be decided on Summary Judgement?
vs
Is it a question of Fact
that must be decided by the fact finder?
I think if Oracle was honest about
the fact that they were held to Sun's behavior and agreed Sun allowed the
situation then:
Google would have applied for Summary Judgement and case
closed!
But... Oracle has a difference of opinion with regards such
facts... so they become issues for the fact finder to handle.
Now...
let's say they only held the trial on that fact alone. And the factfinder
decided there was insufficient evidence to find that Sun did authorize such
behavior. Then that particular defense is closed for Google.
A new trial
would be required for the next defense. And a new trial for the defense after
that. And a new trial for the one after that.
So in comes the principal
of:
One Trial to determine all facts!
And so all evidence is presented
with all defenses:
Laws Of Agency
Not protected by Copyright
Law
Did not require a license
and so on. Just because you believe
that the simple application of Laws Of Agency should just apply and therefore
close the case - that ignores the fact that Oracle has a difference of opinion
on the facts surrounding that aspect.
Refusing to listen to the arguments
of one side of the equation - no matter how bad their arguments are - is not
very fair.
If one could simply harvest all the news media of the time
frame, examine it and take it at its word, then make a decision:
Considering
how SCOG flooded the media with all the infringement of Linux with regards
Unix
Would that really be the process you want in place? Linux is already
guilty without even an examination into what's really going on?
I sure
hope not!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|