|
|
|
| Authored by: sproggit on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
Let's use a different variant of the car analogy. Suppose you were waiting
at a traffic junction, with one vehicle in front of you. Both your vehicle and
the one In front were motionless. A third vehicle approaches, too fast, from
behind, and strikes the rear of your car with such force that your car is
pushed into the second one, causing more damage to your vehicle and
damage to the one in front of you.
In that scenario, both you and the vehicle in front of you are injured parties.
The vehicle in front of you does not claim damages from you because your
car struck theirs. Instead both of you claim from the third party, the one that
was responsible for the incident...
If we apply this existing legal model to the instant case, we can observe
that Oracle is the car in the front, Google is the car in the middle, and
Noser is driving the car at the back, which hits Google's car and pushes
Google's car into Oracle's... So if there is any uniformity in the way that
different legal jurisdictions would handle this sort of scenario, and if this
sort
of scenario could be considered analogous to the instant case, then surely
both Oracle and Google, both injured parties, would have a case against
Noser?
It just strikes me as more economic of a Court's time to simplify this down
and let both parties file suit against the originator of the misdemeanors.
I am also interested in the poster who described Google as being
accountable (legally liable) for all of Android, irrespective of the source.
What about scenarios in which the party required to warrant a product or
workmanship is not legally entitled to do so, because they do not have
appropriate licenses. They retain a third party that does possess a
qualification or license to warrant something. The work of the specialist
third party is in error. You believe that the first party can be held liable for
something that they were essentially forced to outsource because they
lacked the legal basis to perform the work in-house? That doesn't make
sense to me. I don't agree that Google should be held liable for the work
performed by others if there were clear contracts set up at the outset...
But then, IANAL, so I'm likely wrong on this one...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
