|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
Part of the reason you didn't see it was becasue they stipulated that if they
(Google) where found to have directly infrindged then they would have assumed to
have indirectly infrindged as well. (it was earlier in the week). I don't
remember if the flip side held (i.e. if no direct then no indirect) or if they
simply punt the question of indirect and would only take it on if there was no
direct indrindgement.
-Ish
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 08:46 AM EDT |
Bear in mind there is no res judicata precedent that says installing code on a
computer creates an infringing device ...
That fact was *stipulated* in the MS/ATT case and, as such, is not binding
despite being part of the SCOTUS ruling.
So a manufacturer is still free to argue that installing software does not
create an infringing device. All the SCOTUS ruling says is that IF an infringing
device is created, THEN the infringing device was created at install-time.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|