Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
He'll be moving to his own game play. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
He can still fix this, by doing the right thing and declaring copyright doesn't
apply to SSO, in which case the fair use question doesn't apply.
This is really the best case scenario, the jury is forcing the judges hands.
Now, he has to justify why copyright doesn't apply to SSO, after denying summary
judgement on that same issue, if he wants to save his court's time.
I also can't imagine that the jury will agree on damages on SSO if they couldn't
agree on fair use, even if the judge tells them it was not fair use. Why Oracle
would want this jury to establish damages on fair use is beyond me.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Would it have been better if he'd not allowed Oracle to put
this case question before a jury in the first place? I don't
think so and only time will tell. What he did was boil down
what this jury had heard into concise questions for their
"Fact" finding quest. Reserving for himself the larger question
of Law and that's why he instructed them to assume the
Copyrightability of Language API SSO's as a whole.
If they had decided that Google's use of Java API SSO's were
FAIR USE. He would not have had to make the decision on API
Copyrightability. Then both he and Google would have been off
the hook. But as it stands with Google's motion demanding a new
trial on the question of infringement of Oracle's Java API's,
granting Google's motion can still get him off the hook.
But I imagine this Judge is not easily bullied by either side
and will no doubt work to establish this Decision on this issue
of API Copyrightability as precedent setting case law if it can
withstand appeals!!! ....and this is what Judges live for! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
The basis of [a lot of] mathematical proof[s] is to assume the opposite true and
get a contradiction - a ridiculous situation.
If the assumption that APIs are copyrightable is true leads to a ridiculous
situation, then that assumption must be false, ie APIs are not copyrightable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
I can't help but have the feeling that the jury has been tainted by the Judge's
actions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
Talking about the judge I see he has a BS Math from MS St. Does anyone know if
this was hard math or statistics? Don't mean to offend anyone. He has been right
on top of the tech issues so far, IMO.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|