|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
Because if the Jury decides no copying, fair use etc. then he doesn't have to
decide/rule[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
> If (by some miracle) Judge Alsup rules that APIs aren't copyrightable and
the
jury rules they are, how does that help this case?
So the above can not happen on the grounds that the jury does not get to decide
this one way or another. Indeed, the instructions say that the jury is
_supposed_ to assume that the APIs _are_ copyrightable.
Frankly, I think that if I were on the jury I would find this among a couple of
other items in the jury instructions to be quite confusing. But the instructions
do say that. The instructions also seem to imply that if Google copied anything
(APIs or SSO, for example) from Apache Harmony (in accord with the license that
Apache Harmony was released under, too!), then while to all appearances Sun had
no problems at all with Apache Harmony, any copying from Apache Harmony into
Android was copying which comprises a potentially unauthorized copying from
Sun.
None of this makes sense to me, and no I do not see how it helps the case in any
way. It all reminds me of the "but for world" in SCO-Novell.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 08:03 PM EDT |
In the event the Judge's ruling about APIs is over turned they would need a new
trial to determine if Google violated copyrights and what it owed in damages.
Unless of course the jury has already decided this in which the Judge can simply
reinstate the jury's findings...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
The jury will need to consider the fair use question with relation to the 9
lines computing the range in Timsort even if they don't think the SSO of the API
was copied.
This whole notion of the SSO of an API doesn't make sense to me. It is supposed
to be something to do with structure and organisation but it is also supposed to
be non-functional, it isn't the names, it isn't the source code, it isn't the
documentation, and it isn't the language which Sun declared anyone might use. So
what is left???
I don't think Sun presented enough evidence identifying or explaining what this
weird SSO thing actually is. It is their job to identify what was copied here
and I don't think they did it. If the jury can't figure out what the SSO is and
what was supposedly copied they should rule for Google. But I fear that they may
be bamboozled by the judges statement that the SSO is copyrightable into
thinking that this means they must accept that the SSO exists. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
