|
| Authored by: jkrise on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:25 PM EDT |
That's a sensible point of view. I think the judge should've first decided on
the legal aspect BEFORE the jurors decided on the facts. Instead he's got the
case twisted so badly, Oracle looks like heroes in this case.
Atleast this way, and AFTER the EU ruling, it would be nice of the judge
dismissed the copyright junk case and brought it to a swift end.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Oliver on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
Alternatively suppose that there is a disagreement on the SSO
infringement. Then if the judge were to rule that the SSO
wasn't copyrightable in the case of an API they can proceed
without the need for a verdict and only need a retrial if that
decision is overturned at appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: minkwe on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
If it is fair use then it does not "infringe". Isn't that what the
jury is deciding? Whether Google "infringed", how can they have a
verdict of "infringed" if they can not agree on "fair-use"??
---
"Corporate views on IP law might be described as similar to a 2-year-old's
concept of who gets to play with all the toys regardless of who brought them" --
PJ[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
My guess is the judge did it this way so that the verdict would be able to be
usable even in the event of an appeal.
If the judge decides that SSO is not copyrightable and the ruling is
overturned on appeal, the jury's verdict would have to be thrown out. This
way, the jury's verdict can still stand, no matter which way the appeal rules
regarding the copyright bility of SSO.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
