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
Read the jury instructions | 359 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Read the jury instructions
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT
From memory, it's regarding one of the "fair use" excuses.

Broadly if it's in the public interest it is more likely to
be fair use, if it's commercial, it "cuts against" it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Consider indirect revenue?" For what?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT

I wondered the same myself. From the jury instructions we find:

In determining whether the use made of the work was fair, you should consider the following factors:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature, for nonprofit educational purposes, and whether such work is transformative (meaning whether Google’s use added something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the copied work with new expression, meaning, or message). Commercial use cuts against fair use while transformative use supports fair use;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work, including whether the work is creative (which cuts against fair use), functional (which supports fair use), or factual (which also supports fair use);
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The greater the quantity and quality of the work taken, the less that fair use applies; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Impairment of the copyrighted work cuts against fair use.

In my mind at the very least, Android/Dalvik is entirely transformative making it fair use. Of course Google has a commercial interest and so does the public. It prevents Apple and Microsoft from shutting Google out of a substantial portion of the internet user base by means of patent monopolies (a term not yet considered by the legal minds). This makes it fair use because of the public interest.

Java is a software adapter. By definition, it needs an underlying operating system to plug into. Android is not an adapter. It is a stand alone software paradigm designed to lend certain functionality to a certain hardware paradigm. It is also effectively a Java code translator. "Run your certain Java code through our black box and it will be transformed to function with our hardware/software." It is not reasonable or rational to expect that a law will disallow the translation of names/syntax (computer language).

[ 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 )