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

Let me explain | 141 comments | Create New Account

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

Let me explain

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT

Question 1 is: Did Google copy the SSO of the API's. Note: The jury has to
assume that the SSO of the APIs are copyrightable.

Question 2 is: Did Google copy the documentation.

If the answer to both of those questions is "No", then there are no
more questions to be asked. It is only if the jury finds for Oracle on one or
both of those 2 questions that they would need to answer any of the remaining
questions. Since the jury has been asking questions about "fair use"
and "de minimus" defenses, it is likely that at least some of the
jurors have already answered one of the first 2 questions in Oracle's favor.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Alternate interpretation - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT

Guilty unless proven innocent?

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT

Isn't that just the opposite of what the law is supposed to
do?

Assume there is a law to break (copyright) and then look at
whether they broke the assumed law.

So wrong at so many levels. :/

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's a civil trial, different burden of proof - Authored by: hardmath on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT

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 )