|
|
|
| Authored by: jjon on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
PJ wrote:
Anyone know why this reasoning wouldn't justify
the jury's finding about the test files as de minimis, since
they never
shipped with Android and so no user ever used
them?
I don't
think this argument works. The problem is the
definition of "user". For the
Android software that ships
on a phone, the "user" is the person who buys the
phone.
But for the test files, the "user" is the software developer
who's
writing the Android software that will ship on a
phone.
And the fact
that the files are there suggests they were
used by at least one software
developer.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
There would be no requirement to follow it if it was an appeals court decision
in a different circuit (excepting the Federal Circuit, maybe) anyway.
I'm not sure if Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit creates binding
precedent on matters for which it does not have exclusive jurisdiction which
come before it (like copyright, for example), especially where it differs in its
holdings from the court of appeals for a particular district.
Does anyone happen to know if it does?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
