[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• That was the reason for the judge's question. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT
  • That was the reason for the judge's question. - Authored by: Oliver on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT
  • So... you prefer entities having mutliple bites at the apple? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT
    • So... you prefer entities having mutliple bites at the apple? - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:58 PM EDT
• That was the reason for the judge's question. - Authored by: jvillain on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT
  • Newspapers, Magazines and Journals - Authored by: softbear on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
• I suspect its too late - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT
• Don't forget the new expert report - Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 03:52 AM EDT

Claimant is not necessarily the author, as the case law cited in the weekend briefs points out: a case in which a journal was copyrighted with a single registration to include the several articles contained therein.

However the copyright of those articles had been assigned to the journal, hence the distinction of claimant vs. author.

Still Google seems to have a strong argument here, since Oracle has not produced copyright assignments for those components contributed by other authors. Indeed the failure of Sun to be able to open source their own implementation of Java 1.5 in its entirety, owing to the refusal of some third-parties to agree to GPL terms, seems to indicate a well-known situation with regard to authorship of many Core API class libraries.

Note that the problem arises because of the single Java registration, and cannot be avoided just because the 37 accused APIs might be owned by Oracle.

---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem prover." -- Richard O'Keefe

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]