Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

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 @ 06:24 AM EDT

No offense was taken - I was really genuinely confused by your response.

I think that if they had wanted to spend the time and money (and maybe they have
- I haven't read all the filings or even all of the reports here) Google could
have argued very forcefully for non-copyrightability of the code for both merger
and scenes a faire reasons. I don't think that Google and counsel though it
would be a worthwhile use of resources, especially since Bloch couldn't state
definitively that he re-wrote it and it happened to turn out identically (which
may or may not have made it OK - there's a presumption that access plus identity
implies copying - once that is established then it needs to be refuted by the
other side).

But maybe they did and it will come out in the rule 50 motions? Or was that one
of the motions that was just denied?

[ 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 )