|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 12:25 AM EDT |
The judge has left the jury with a ridiculous decision to make.
He has essentially told them that SSO was copied and is copyrightable. But ...
names are not copyrightable, nor are purely functional elements. If you take the
names and purely functional elements out of the SSO, there is nothing left! What
is the jury supposed to rule on? I'd hate to be on that jury.
He is essentially asking the jury to rule on facts about the empty set. Logical
statements about the empty set can be tricky. Did google copy the empty set.
Well yes because each element of this empty set was copied. Also no because each
element of the empty set was not copied. Was the copying de minimus? Hmmm (gets
out calculator) zero divided by zero equals ...?
See what I mean! A logical nightmare![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 01:38 AM EDT |
I sincerely hope you are correct. My point was that if the jury goes Google's
way, then the judge will probably not make that call.
Do we really want Oracle to have a second bite of the cherry against someone
without the resources to mount a strong argument, a judge less technically savvy
as this one, and with Oracle having an opportunity to learn from their mistakes
to put up a stronger argument?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|