|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
It not prejudice, SSO is a copyrightable component of a literary work,
particularly so in the case of compilations.
This is referred to as 'database' copyright.
The problem is that you have to copy the whole SSO, not just a little tiny bit
of it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Oliver on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT |
Not at all. He is doing it to save time in the appeals
process:
Judge: Reserving on the issue of whether SSO is
a
copyrightable issue. That way, it would be easy for the
court of appeals to
reverse without a new trial.
The point is that the jury shouldn't
waste time trying to
work out if it is copyrightable, nor should they be
confused
on that point, so they have to assume that it is. Then they
can
fairly judge the remaining defences that Google put
forward. It also means
that if the judge decides that it
isn't copyrightable, and the appeals court
disagrees then
they don't need a new trial as this one has already
progressed
on the assumption that they are.
I think that the judge intends to rule that
they are not
copyrightable (fortunately) and then it will go to appeal.
What
we might not end up with is a second trial, simply
because of this instruction
to assume that it is
copyrightable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: s65_sean on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
If the jury does find that Google violated the SSO of the APIs based on the
judge telling them that the SSOs are protected by copyright, then the judge
rules later that the SSOs are not protected by copyright, will that be before or
after the damages phase of the trial?
Could the jury award higher damages for both copyright and patent infringement
on the basis of their understanding that "Big Bad Google" violated
poor little Oracle's copyrights and patents, when in fact ther was no copyright
to violate?
What I mean is, could the jury end up awarding damages for patent infringement
in an amount that be higher than it would have otherwise been because the jury
is biased against Google unfairly by the judge telling them that the SSOs are
protected when he later rules in fact that they are not?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
