|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
One issue with de minimis is how vital the
copied piece is, not just how large. Oracle
is trying to say this bit is so vital it
gets used over and over and over and in fact
Android can't live without it, so pay us please.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
And it's already been said:
the 9 lines are no longer in Android or added
to new Android devices
The 9 lines were such a valuable addition that they
were removed without any real thought or consideration and had zero impact to
the overall functionality of Android.
Explain that clearly to the Jury
and no amount of attempts for Oracle to try and puff up the importance should
work.
Caveat: I have not personally verified the most current Android
distribution. As a software developer, I do expect the code to exist in the
history stream unless a Court Order occurs to completely obliterate it from the
Source Code Control. I am taking Google's Court Statements that the code has
been removed at face value to indicate from a specific version of the code
forward.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
While I can see allowing copyright for a song or software program as a whole as
a larger creative expression, it seems absurd to allow copyright for a musical
note or beat or utility method on its own.
How is infringement possible at all, if it's a commonly used small utility
method?
Google should fight whether copyright even applies to these 9 lines at all.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
