|
Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
No,
I stand correct. It's complicated logic though.
Possibilities :
Google Guilty of 1A, acquitted by 1B (Fair Use).
Google Guilty of 1A, not acquitted by 1B (Not Fair Use).
Google Not Guilt of 1A, 1B irrelevant.
SSO of API not copyrightable.
Of the three, only the second one is bad for Google. As of right now, we're
down to only three options (Guilty and Fair use, or Guilty and Not Fair Use, or
moot question).
Google can go for a mistrial on 1, and keep the rest of the decision (which was
pretty much 100% what they wanted). Note it's not a mistrial on the entire
decision, only question 1. Question 1 was biased from the start (a given based
on the judge's attempt at judicial efficiency). By the time a new trial can
occur, the judge will either have decided the SSO is copyrightable or it isn't.
If it isn't, the mistrial is moot. If it is, Google can now hammer Oracle on
exactly the stances they took, and can better defend against this (in addition
to appealing the judge's ruling on APIs).
So yeah, they're happy with the ruling. I don't think they wanted Guilty but
Fair Use, because that doesn't clarify if APIs and SSO is copyrightable or not.
So yeah, I think they are very happy with the situation as it is right now.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|