|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:59 AM EDT |
| Android was and is Google's brainchild. They and they alone, imho, are
responsible for the provenance of its code.
The nine files were there, in
their entirety.
I'm not a lawyer and haven't been able to figure out what
de minimus means in this context. It appears, however, that the judge
and the jury's opinions do differ.
Of such are appeals made. Its only
money.
[/shrug]
The API/SSO copyright issue is the important one.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 05:15 AM EDT |
I suspect that Google's evidence about Noser doing it contrary to their
instructions and contract was to establish that the copying was not wilful.
Best wishes,
Bob
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
I think it is correct that Oracle sues Google over these
files and not Noser. Google is responsible for the actions of
their sub-contractor. However, if Google ends up having to
pay Oracle for the inclusion of these files and wants that
money back, *Google* should go to Switzerland and sue Noser
for this contract breach.
(With 'correct' I mean it in a procedural sense. It is not my
intention to actually support Oracle with this lawsuit in any
way.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
