|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
This looks dire... Looks like we're going to have to hear from
Alsup's determination of whether APIs can be copyrighted.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
Doesn't look the "Honorable" Judge Alsup is without bias in this case
after all.
Considering that he knows that Oracle doesn't even have a legitimate copyright,
the jury instructions seemed (at best) designed to lead the jury in Oracle's
direction.
It looks like Google will have to appeal this and hope they get someone with
common sense somewhere in the food chain.
Wonder who Oracle will sue for using APIs next?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
I didn't think we were in the damages phase yet.
How are the jurors going to use "indirect revenue" to determine
whether Google copied Oracle's / Sun's stuff?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
| and some Verizon android phones use Bing for searches, not Google. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
This indicates to me that the Jury is paying attention. When I first read the
fair use instruction where it mentions that the commercial nature of a work
'cuts against' fair use I saw this as an issue. Android is a vehicle for
commercial activity (even if you only consider the google search widget which is
typically pre-installed) and considering indirect revenue from that portion
seems valid in determining the commercial nature.
It is possible that the Jury asking this question now indicates they will tip
towards no fair use but it does not have to. It depends a lot on how the
foreperson is running things.
JT[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Doesn't the fact that the jury puts to itself the question "Can we consider
indirect revenue from the copyrighted work?" indicate that
any consideration of 'direct revenue from the copyrighted work', was
inconclusive, i.e. in that regard not unfavourable to Google?
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
