|
|
|
| Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
"Whether or not APIs can be copyrighted is a question of law it is my
responsibility as judge to determine. As a jury, your responsibility is to
determine the facts about Google's use of the Java API's. To do this, please
assume that APIs are subject to copyright as you determine the facts regarding
infringement and related issues and defenses."
I don't know if being that straightforward about asking them to be hypothetical
about the law would be better or worse, but it would certainly be a good deal
clearer.
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
The potential impact of this case is reminding me of the
potential impact of Prometheus v Mayo Clinic, which was
ultimately adjudicated by the Supremes. For relatively small,
localized potential gains Oracle is ready and willing to go
nuclear and stand decades of global software ecosystem
practice on its head. So much for any pretense of good
citizenship in the ecosystem of which they are part.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
The judge probably would've hated me as a juror, because my first question
would've been "As a matter of law, how should we consider the merger doctrine to
interact with your instruction to consider the APIs to be covered by
copyright?". Because to me Oracle's shown that Google copied those elements
which are also functional: those elements which cannot be expressed differently
and still have the software function properly. I don't believe that was covered
in the jury instructions, and it's a question of law which is the judge's
turf. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
