Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

McNealy on Bloomberg | 359 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

McNealy on Bloomberg

Authored by: s65_sean on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 08:48 AM EDT

The documentation is covered by its own separate copyright, and if it was
literally copied, then there was copyright violation. Literal copying, or near
literal copying (virtually identity seems to be the phrase that the attorneys
and judge are using for "almost literal copying") of the documentation
is one of the things that Oracle is accusing Google of in Android. Google is
claiming that the documentation is merely documenting technical facts, so one
would expect nearly the same wording to describe the same set of facts even if
the 2 sets of documentation were written completely independent of each other,
so writing a document about the same facts, even if it contains most of the same
words and phrases is not copyright infringement unless it is virtually
identical.

[ 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 )