|
| Authored by: darrellb on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
Agreed. Don't mix the terms copying and infringement. There is no such thing as
indirect copying within copyright law. There is indirect infringement, like
posting up a copy of a copyrighted movie that you don't own and letting other
people view it. Both direct infringement (when the copy as made and posted) and
indirect infringement (allowing others to view the work) are implicated.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 07:10 AM EDT |
"Copying from a third party would only make a difference if the third party
had a valid license that would enable them to pass rights on to Google. Everyone
agrees that Harmony did not have such a license from Sun/Oracle."
But they did have that lisense. It may have been a null lisense, but they had
every lisence they needed to do what they did.
Oracle even said so, or they wouldn't have supported Harmony when they did if
they didn't feel Harmoney was completely legit. Right?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
They also have to show that the protected creative expression was copied by
Harmony and then by Google and that you can see the copied protected expression
in a work of Google.
If Google just copied the .class and the class source code, can the protected
expression from the original document be seen in there?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
