|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
That might be the right guess, though. When he
ruled against Oracle the other day, he did say
that he might get reversed on appeal, but he
just didn't think it would be right to rule for
Oracle.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
Or maybe he's giving Oracle as much rope as he can to hang themselves with.
They're rapidly running out of things to prove liability on, so eventually the
damages associated with rangeCheck and the test files will be shown to be
zero, infringement of the patents will be disproved, and the APIs' SSO will be
the only thing left.
At which point the good Judge can come down and very
thoroughly dismantle
any possibility of the APIs and their SSO being
copyrightable. He's probably
using the time to research and write that ruling
up in a totally watertight
manner, so that it's the strongest part of the case
and therefore unlikely to be
appealed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 08:37 AM EDT |
Are you sure about that?
I thought Boies only managed to skip abstraction/filtration because he lied
about it pre-trial.
Hence the whole thing nearly blew up in everyone's face when Oracle bought up
the fact that it was a collection when they entered there copyright
registrations and instead a rescue attempt was made and we got tortured
definitions of "the work as a whole".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
