|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
> they presented no evidence of
ownership of any of the 37 individual whole works.
That's the point that I think is being oversold here on
Groklaw. Over several days of testimony, nobody from Sun's
side ever said "we wrote the Java API spec"??? On the
contrary, there were books submitted into evidence
describing the spec - Sun employees wrote at least one of
those books.
Remember, registration is not needed to show ownership. All
Oracle had to do was *state* "we wrote that" at some point.
It's possible they forgot to do it, maybe because Google had
said they weren't going to contest the point. (I'm pretty
sure it was *not* one of Google's admissions, though.) But
I'd be very surprised if they can't point to *something*
that one of their witnesses said.
Actually, on further reflection, this is a harder problem
for Oracle than I assumed. Oracle would have hearsay
problems unless they put the actual coders on the stand
(which I don't think they did). So maybe they *did* forget
to introduce any evidence of ownership besides the
registrations. If so, bravo to Van Nest for noticing.
And yes, this is still a good move by Van Nest just in terms
of forcing Oracle to pick a theory of infringement and a
definition of "the work" that they will have to stick to
during damages calculations and fair use arguments.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|