decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
That's my take | 394 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
whoops
Authored by: darrellb on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT
Google argues that since the copyright registration is for a collection, Oracle
can't assert infringement claims except as to the collection as a whole.
Therefore they can't sue over parts of the collection which is, of course, what
the 37 APIs are.

Oracle has argued that Google can infringe less than the full copyrighted matter
in the same manner that one can infringe a novel by copying less than the
complete novel.

The Rule 50 motion and reply should be interesting.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
  • whoops - Authored by: jjs on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:20 AM EDT
That's my take
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:49 AM EDT
The work is the registered Java SE. The entire Java SE API Specification is not
a registered work.

In fact, I argue later that it is not a work at all and that the SSO is not
protectable in a library of copyright documents.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )