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
Guess who was Chairman of the Board of Directors then? | 359 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Wasn't J. Schwartz CEO at the relevant time?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 06:37 AM EDT
Companies are not a dictatorship. Th CEO is just one member of the
board. Th CEO s position may be in direct conflict with the other board
members and the CEO desires may be different from the companies
desires.it is clear schwarz didn't get his way while CEO and has some
pretty sour grapes about it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Guess who was Chairman of the Board of Directors then?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 08:13 AM EDT
Guess who was Chairman of the Board of Directors then?

However, when you look at the laws of agency, the CEO is an
agent, and a key agent related to the principal definition.

So, even it the Chairman didn't approve, if he did nothing
to control the CEO who was openly operating on a different
path or agenda, that the Laws of Agency typically, on a case
by case basis, would favor the position of the innocent 3rd
party who depended on the "words" or "deeds" of the agent of

the principal that "was acting" in a way to lead them to a
conclucion. In those cases, courts often rule that the
innocent 3rd party (Google, or phone makers, or consumers)
could not be harmed by the principal who after the fact
tries to reverse the actions of their agent(s).

The copyright part of the case is still key, because going
forward, an agent that is out there "on their own" so to
speak, can be muffled... and, maybe in the future, the
copyright powers could be restored, even if for a period of
time they were deemed as being "free" due to the actions and
words of the agent who was acting in a way to free them?

So, the judges ruling on copyright, bearing to the video's
wording is KEY to many open source projects such as Harmony
(a JAVA knock off) and even any MySQL knock offs (and the
patent part of the case will even apply with more interest
because methods and concepts are much more broad than
copyright).

If Google wins, we all win.

If Google loses, we all lose in a big way, and it is maybe
time to leave the US - THE US GOVERNMENT will lose because
no one in the US will ever develop here, and all the part of
the economy will disappear (for every action, there is the
potential for an equal and opposite reaction).

[ 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 )