|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
Well, we all know how that went for SCO, but they were actually more accurate in
many cases than the lawyers in this case (that really came as a surprise).
You'll note that "methods and concepts" went nowhere.
You'll also note that selection, arrangement, and coordination refers to
elements of a compilation. This comes straight out of the statutory definition
of compilation.
And if you look up the case law (Whelan), you'll find that structure, sequence,
and organization is what applies to computer programs, and they actually all
mean the same thing, legally speaking.
As a lawyer you don't just get to pick and choose which words to use - you have
to use the right ones in the right situation. If you don't you risk confusing
the judge (usually bad) and looking like you don't know what you're talking
about in front of judges, your peers, and your clients.
Read the jury instructions and you'll find that the judge gets it right every
time.
You are right about one thing, though: these sets of words tend to come three at
a time. It's a relic of the times when lawyers were paid by the word - you bill
the client four times as much for a three word phrase (including the
conjunction) than you can for using one word concisely. It also tends to aid
memory, but that's just my opinion, and the lawyering in this case stands as a
counterexample to that.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 11:18 AM EDT |
Remember, SCO had a whole expert report showing that the Structure, Sequence
and Organization of Linux was similar to UNIX SYSV, and thus, was a massive
Copyright rip-off.
The entire report was disallowed because SCO had failed to disclose the lines
of code alleged to be infringed in the report (essentially all of SYSV and all
of Linux) at the deadline for all infringement disclosures.
At that deadline, SCO disclosed ... 242 allegedly infringed lines of code ![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
