|
|
|
| Authored by: cpeterson on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
So... Judge Alsup is willing to set a precedent that you can copyright the
organization of names in a phone book, *if* it ends up not mattering to the
outcome of this case, and is thereby not reversible on appeal?
That is (IMH-NAL-O) not good.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
op of Maybe not ?
I missed the second tweet. I'm not impressed with the judge on this issue. He
feels uncomfortable with what in his mind is a tough assignment and wastes
everyone's time so that he can avoid his responsibilities.
The question of API's having copyright is in my mind a matter of law. It is
inappropriate to put the fair use question before a jury in the absence of a
judge determining that copyrights are at hand (I think he knows this and that's
why he has acted this way regretting that he hadn't shut this down earlier).
Judge Alsup needs to step up so that the process can run it's course through the
appeals court and settle the matter once and for all. He should have done this
a while ago.
I do have a question though. If the jury decides in favour of fair use and
relieves Google of any claims against them but Judge Alsup's decision that API
names and parameter specifications are subject to copyright protection becomes
part of the record, would this be something that Google can/should bring up on
appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
