|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
IANAL, but I think they are out of luck.
Maybe there would be a way if they could make it distinct
enough to sound like a new case?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
Who improperly registered the copyrights? If it was
contracted out (i.e. not done by one of their own employees),
can they sue the contractor for bad work? And can they sue
BSF their legal representative in this suit for sloppiness?
This question assumes that Oracle is going to lose this case.
As we all know, it ain't over 'til it's over.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
It's too late for them to file new registrations for this case. They might, in
theory, be able to dig up existing ones that support their case, but I somehow
doubt that.
Oracle is facing a checkmate with almost no time to look for an escape. After
repeatedly trying to ambush Google and failing, this can only be described as
karmic.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
The main effect if it turns out the copyrights aren't properly registered is
that
if they properly register and then sue and win, they do not win attorney
fees
and cannot be awarded statutory damages. All they can collect are actual
damages. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
| No one has argued the copyrights were improperly
registered.
:-)
---
Real Programmers mangle their own memory. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
