|
|
|
| Authored by: rocky on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
You know how the instructions to the jury were to decide whether there was
infringement giving the ASSUMPTION that the SSO of the APIs is actually
copyrightable? I hate how that's already putting a false idea into their heads
and then making them decide other things based on that as a foundation. I know
you could consider them to be mostly separate things, but it feels so messed up
to try to make an an accurate decision with faulty information.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: athelas on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
Given that this has been his MO so far, I think it indicates that he will rule
that the API is not copyrightable, regardless of where he is leaning. The
reasoning is that it is clear that he thinks there is a substantial question, so
he could legitimately rule either way, and if he rules against copyrightablity
then this case can go to appeal without needing a retrial. He knows it's going
to appeal anyway, and this way if it comes back to a different jury at least the
legal uncertainty will be removed. Best case, it avoids the need for a retrial
entirely.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
