decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
rangeCheck - vast amounts of prior art | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
rangeCheck - vast amounts of prior art
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 03:58 AM EDT
I was just trying to explain how (and to some degree why) the law works with
respect to damages for copyright infringement - PJ seemed a bit confounded by it
in her update. I did say I would try to stay away from the details of the
case.

Additionally, I'm not sure what you think copyright has to do with prior art -
that's for patents.

I agree with you that it's absurd that Oracle could claim to have property in
those lines of code (people have property (rights) in stuff - stuff is not
property, with the possible exception of land , which would be "real
property"). The law of copyright is broken with respect to software - has
been since that day it was applied to software.

You leave me unsure as to whether or not you replied to the post you intended to
reply to, but if it matters I would also be one of those "many people who
frequent Groklaw" to whom you referred. ;)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )