decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
While we wait | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
While we wait
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT
I can see how it maight be confusing, but the answers match the question
appropriately once you understand what it is that the plaintiff must prove.

If the plaintiff hasn't proven that the amount copied was substantial on a
balance of probabilities, then the copying was de minimis.

This wording, while potentially confusing, preserves the plaintiff's onus to
prove their case.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You have to view it in the context of the Jury Intructions
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 06:04 AM EDT


which you clearly have not done, the key issue
is the standard of comparison and the definition of "Whole Work" which
is the baseline for the start of comparison.


Irrespective of your views on Q1/2, this is amply demonstrated in your answer to
question 3 (de-minimis across the board)

The problem being that in the case of question 3 the whole work is defined as
"the individual files", so for

A) Rangecheck: 9 lines out of 900 De-Minimis probably.
C) 4lines of comments in two files, De-Minimis probably.

B) However, the files are a direct copy (or a reversed engineered direct copy),
the standard is substantial similarity, and the breadth of the comparison is
only the file.

except in the sense that these files did not make it into handsets(which I
don't beleive to ba part of the Jury Instruction), this is not de-minimis.


For damages discussions however, I would expect that the standard will be
different. yes it is conceded that the files were copied, in their entirety, but
they are an insignificant chunk , so damages minimal.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )