|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
If the jury holds api's not copyrighted, it only counts in this case. If the
judge holds copyrights not copyrighted, well, depending on his reasoning, it can
have a much wider scope.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 08:21 AM EDT |
Is the judge obliged by the rules of procedure to give an opinion on the law
rather than rule the motion moot?
Google have stipulated that copyright stuff (37 dollops of SSO, whatever that
is) were copied. The jury will not decide that the copying never took place and
will not moot the issue of the law.
If the jury found that Google were entitled to do what they did only because Sun
said they could (fair use), then Oracle could declare that company policy had
changed and that Java language use in Android without an express Oracle licence
must now stop. I don't think the jury verdict includes the basis of their
decision and so Google could not show that there were the other prongs of fair
use that came into play.
The only way I can see for Google to carry on with Android in that situation
would, effectively, to go to another court to settle the Rule 50 motion issue.
That would not contribute to judicial efficiency.
Perhaps the judge will rule and use the backstop of the jury decision to prevent
an appeal. IIRC a jury decision is much harder to appeal.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
