|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:28 AM EDT |
I don't know where this is carved in law, but I see a general position taken by
judges and the court.
In this case, Judge Motz said that it did not matter if the minions complained
bitterly about Windoes API support, if a senior manager did not formally
complain then it did not count. Novell brought up the Frankenburg emails
complaining about the lack of support and Judge Motz accepted that.
Now, he is saying that Mr. Harrel is just the software architect for word
processing dealing with this support issue. Judge Motz says that Bill Gates
formally declared for Microsoft that middleware was a threat to Microsoft
Windows, but he wants the matching company declaration as a matter of policy
that Novell intended to use Word Perfect as middleware competition to Windows
95.
In Oracle v. Microsoft we see Judge Alsup rejecting the CEO blog until it had
been formally included by evidence that it represented a company position. (It
slips my mind how that was discovered!)
Also, he wants to see evidence that it was Google company policy that they
relied on Sun statements of support and permission to use the Harmony code and
the APIs. Even senior coders views were not sufficient.
This does not look like a particular judge's attitude to the law: it seems like
a central tenet of company law. I would not know where to look for the 'black
letter of the law' that provides any sort of foundation for this.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
