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
The "big fat manual" thing | 687 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You might be right. (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT
This comment is intentionally blank. Perhaps like the CD
that Oracle claims to be their certified copyright submission?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The "big fat manual" thing
Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 07:08 PM EDT
As most seem to have done, I understood Judge Alsup's remark
about losing on the "big fat manual" issue to be directed at
Google. However he may have had in mind a slightly
different comparison, one echoed in Oracle's comments and
briefing.

The losing comparison is likely taking some copied Oracle
documentation (or perhaps the declarations of the APIs) and
including that in a larger work, then claiming that only a
small fraction of the resulting work is copied.

The fair use doctrine has (as one of four considerations)
what fraction of an original (copyright protected) work has
been used. This (rather than the much, much larger work for
Android) is the proper "denominator" for comparison, and I
rather suspect Judge Alsup was telegraphing that to Google.


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

[ 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 )