|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
I agree. Apparently Sony alleged the intermediate copies may by Connectix were
illegal, Sony apparently did not allege that creating a reverse engineered clone
of their produce was in itself infringing.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
I think he's looking at the "reverse engineering is fair use" bit in
the final judgement and I can't see any Oracle spin that would look good.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
In addition to anything new, I expect a rehash of Oracle America, INC.'s
Opposition to Google's
Motion for Summary Judgement on Count VIII of Oracle's
Amended Complaint:
"Google’s fair use argument relies heavily
on the Ninth
Circuit’s decisions in Sony and Sega ņ two cases with
very
different facts that raise very different policy
concerns. The focus of the
court’s inquiry in both cases
was whether it was fair use to reverse engineer a
opyrighted
product where “disassembly is the only way to gain access to
the
ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted
[work].” See Sega
Enters., Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d
1510, 1527-28 (9th Cir. 1993); Sony
Computer Entm’t, Inc v.
Connectix, 203 F.3d 596, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2000). But
here,
Oracle’s APIs were in plain view for anyone to see, so there
was no need
to copy them to discover their functional
elements.
Another key to
both decisions was that they concern
intermediate copying only. The final
product was not
alleged to infringe the copyright. See Sega, 977 F.2d at
1527-28; Sony, 203 F.3d at 604 n.7. As the Ninth Circuit
noted in Sega,
“[o]ur conclusion does not, of course,
insulate [defendant] from a claim of
copyright infringement
with respect to its finished products.” 977 F.2d at
1528.
Here, of course, Oracles accuses the final Android APIs and
code of
infringement. The reasoning in Sega and Sony does
not apply. The four
statutory factors are discussed below."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
