|
|
|
| Authored by: Ehud on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
Having not heard this quote before I searched on it. It's a good quote... but
not Ben Franklin. See http://tinyurl.com/4emn4m[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
I thought that both sides wanted Judge Alsup to decide that question. In the "REQUEST FOR
STATEMENT OF ISSUES RE COPYRIGHT" Alsup said,The Court will not
rule on the copyrightability issues until all of the Phase One evidence is in
the trial record and counsel are reminded again of the need to place in the
record all evidence on which they will rely for their respective positions, both
as to copyrightability and infringement and defenses. Before Phase One closing
argument, the Court will decide whether to ask for an advisory verdict on
issues. (As already clear, damages evidence, including copyright damages
evidence, will be reserved to Phase Three). Wasn't he already
planning to decide after Phase 1?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- seconded - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 03:29 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
Seems to me that there should be no doubt. Whether something is *copyrightable*
should be a matter of law for the judge. Whether something is *copyrighted* in
the manner the plaintiff claims should be a matter of fact for the jury.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 12:55 AM EDT |
The quote is catchy, but it is almost certainly *not* attributable to Franklin.
Its earliest known instance is from *1992*. ref.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Democracy#Misattributed[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
Judge's "Strange" understanding of API's = knowing JURY
would not understand the copyright law.
The judge seems to have moved from thinking he knew about
API's, to really thinking he knew, to doubting he knew, to
thinking he knew, then back to the over all understanding
where this whole API thing to him, was "strange".
And, most likely knowing how all this is still strange and
complicated, looked at the jury, their eyes glazing over,
and decided, correctly, to take the bull by the horns, and
that in the end, the copyright issue of this API thing, was
technical, and might be already based on rulings that exist
already in copyright law.
NOW, one has to ask if he understands the GPLv2 language,
and that if the API's were indeed under GPLv2 language (ok
with SUN to be there), then there would be no way to limit
their use (except, that the GPLv2 license language was the
controller of the use rights).
How much evidence has been entered were the judge can then
layer GPLv2 over all that this case has presented so far?
If he sees it thru the GPLv2 license, then any "Strange"
instantly goes away. How hard has Google worked to make
his glasses focus on the GPLv2 aspects of this ruling that
he has decided to make on his own?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
