|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
I think it was because it was accidental and did not do anything for Google.
They couldn't claim that Oracle were attempting to create an unfair monopoly or
that Google 'transformed' the test files into something much more wonderful.
In this case, the fair non-use argument should have prevailed because Google
were not trying to use the files for anything. I suppose it doesn't count as a
defence because copying is copying. It will destroy the actual damages and
profits assessment, though.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
If the test files were decompiled as part of the "reverse
engineering" process, and later deleted, then I believe they
would indeed be covered by this precedent - whether done by
Google or the subcontractor, and irrespective of whether the
files were delivered to Google.
The Connectix case seems to give wide scope to engineers to
do whatever they need as part of the process of reaching the
unprotectable elements (ie the ideas) hidden within - and
decompiling the 8 test files would (to me) certainly be
within scope.
It would seem (again, to me) that the mere existence of
these files is only an artifact of the (allowable)
intermediate copying process. And that the subsequent non-
delivery of the files to end-users bolsters this position.
End result should be: Fair use, with the files accidentally
continuing to exist.
But we're past that already aren't we? So current result
should be that there is no damage done whatsoever.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
Connectix relied on the fact that their fair use files were only internal and
were never distributed.
Not positive, but I believe that google
(accidently) distributed the files to
everyone who downloaded the developer kit
(until the test files were removed),
so, unlike Connectix, they were not purely
internal, so the argument doesn't
work for those. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
