|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
What you said, and also that Google are entitled to point out, in the summing
up, the legal significance of any public pronouncements of senior officers of a
company.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
In many common law jurisdictions, there is a statute of limitations on taking
civil actions, usually expressed in "n years" from when the violation
becomes apparent (as opposed to from when the violation occurs). This
distinction allows the victim to sue later, e.g. in cases of bad building
construction practices which might not be apparent when the work is freshly
completed. In the statute of limitations, "n" is often n=2 or so. If
Google made the Android code public 5 years ago in 2007, and Sun was aware of
this but did not sue, then Google may have a statute of limitations argument
against Oracle suing now.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
