|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
I'm not sure how it applies to this situation.
---
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 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
Isn't BIOS a motherboard specific and, by extension a
hardware specific program? Where is the analogy with API?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
"Any other intermediate copies made by Connectix
do not support injunctive relief, even if those copies were infringing."
Just imagine for a moment that Judge Alsup might be thinking about those 8 test
files. He overruled the jury, saying it's unreasonable to say they weren't
infringing. However, that infringement might "not support injuctive [or
other] relief", and I think Judge Alsup could issue an order which states
as much - basically, that the jury verdict form may have been asking the wrong
question.
Or maybe it's just "If you bratty lawyers don't have anything to do, I'll
give you some homework!"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
Connectix is reverse engineering an undocumented API. The fact that it
is undocumented is significant compared to Java's well documented, published API
that has books written about it. That Sun released the source code of their
implementation under an open source license. Even if Java were closed source,
reverse engineering it for a compatible API to run third party software would be
protected.
The BIOS is an API to manipulate the
hardware.
Connectix never included any SONY copyrighted material in its
product. Niether does Google. (Except 9 lines, including blank lines, of a
trivial function.)
Furthermore, even if Google had used Java material
and copies internally while developing a somewhat compatible implementation of
Java, that would be protected fair use according to this case. (Test and unit
test frameworks?)
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
For those interested, Cornell has the opinion here.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe,
"Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
Why is the judge having them brief on a case about fair use
at all?
Fair use is already out of this trial, with a hung jury,
right? fair use has got nothing to do with this trial
anymore.
Either the judge decides it's nto copyrightable at all, in
which case fair use is irrelevant -- or the judge decides it
is copyrightable, in which case fair use is for another
court to decide, cause this court had a hung jury.
That said, clearly this case is good for Google.
Also, has anyone else noticed that Oracle can't decide if
they want to say they're mad at Google cause Android's Java-
ish IS (mostly) compatible with 'Java', or is NOT (entirely)
compatible with 'Java'. They can't decide which is better
for their legal stance, and they can't decide which is
better PR in the media. They keep going back and forth. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
