|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 06:32 AM EDT |
Precisely - USL code was missing the copyright statements it ought to have
had. By Dr Reinhold's reasoning, they were omitted by sloppy USL coders; if
this had been the USL case and Dr Reinhold had been engaged to check code, no
thought would have been given to the fact that the missing copyrights were
because they were not USL code but BSD code - code that originated elsewhere
(and without those notices was used without licence and hence copyright
infringing).
Surely it would not be surprising if the USL vs BSD case
had come under the radar of either party in this case (as that case dealt [in
part?] with copyright infringement) especially as copyright notices were missing
from USL files.
Surely Dr Reinhold should have been aware of the copyright
notices missing in the USL case and not just assumed that sloppy Sun engineers
had failed to put in their copyright notices; surely the USL vs BSD case records
that copyright notices were missing in files owned by USL but that the code was
NOT USLs - ie the notices were NOT missing due to sloppy USL
engineers.
Which comes down to Dr Reinhold's testimony of the ownership
of the 37 APIs by Oracle being unsound since he seems to have omitted to
actually check the origin of missing Copyrights (and the USL vs BSD case shows
that missing copyright notices can actually mean that the probability of the
stuff without notices coming from outside Oracle is high - or did Congress "fix
it" to say if copyright notices are missing then it is more than likely
internally written stuff and not copied illegally?), which means that Google may
not have infringed Oracle's copyright on those APIs (as Oracle never had it in
the first place); also that if Oracle's theory about API copyright is correct,
then Oracle [could] themselves have been infringing someone else's copyright on
those APIs.
Or to put it another way, Oracle have loudly shouted that
Google [may] infringe some 37 APIs [of theirs], but that they have failed to
check that they actually own those APIs before coming to court.
Which
as PJ notes:
[PJ: Wow. I wonder if this means Oracle can't prove it
actually owns the 37? That's one of the requirements to prevail on a copyright
infringement claim. As we now see, this isn't just some "technicality".]
Oracle may have a copyright registration (using? a CDROM which
contains nothing), but if they do not own that which they purport to have
registered, then surely they have committed copyright infringement against the
true owners, especially as it's being used for their own financial
gain?
Or am I totally misunderstanding copyright registration? ie I can
register the copyright for anything I like regardless of whether I own the
copyright or not? If copyright registration is required before can sue for
damages for infringement, then if the registration is found to be false, what's
the penalty?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
Point is, Berkeley *proved* to the Judge's satisfaction that AT&T (as it
was) removed Berkeley copyrights.
At which point, the legal assumption became that ALL the code was BSD's (or
anyone else's, but certainly NOT AT&T's) unless AT&T could prove
otherwise.
OOOooopppsss
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
