|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 07:47 AM EDT |
The thing that leaves a sour taste in the mouth is that jury never got to hear
all the good arguments why the infringement of the SSO theory is a piece of
crap. Since the judge decided he should rule on the issue but actually refused
to rule Google could not use all the great arguments in front of the jury but
had to limit themselves to much smaller subset of "some parts of it are
functional and therefor we don't infringe" instead of their true position
"it is all functional since it is an API and therefor we can no
infringe".
The jury was told that they should assume SSO is copyrightable and that it is
not de minimis. In practice I think it is very far from a even field.
The jury members have very many reasons to believe that Google actually
infringes at least something since why else would Oracle take them to court and
Google not challenging them harder for doing it? We know it is because the judge
restricted what Google could say since he said it was a matter for the bench,
but how should the jury guess this?
Hopefully the total failure of Oracle to provide a real paper trail of evidence
means the jury still will find in favor of Google. I think the Oracle lawyers
are true marvel...imagine they could get the case as far as this with so little
evidence.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
