|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:10 AM EDT |
Darl was the guy entitled to state SCO company policy. His statements were
binding on the company. His testimony can be impeached in court. He made that
statement to the press at the time he first lost in court in front of Judge
Kimball. The statements he made in front of Judge Stewart were impeached using
those official company statements to the press.
In Oracle v. Google, Google’s defenses of equitable estoppel and laches were
denied as moot. The question of whether it was company policy to rely on Sun's
company pronouncements was never decided. Sun never stated that Google needed or
did not need a licence to the Java APIs because it never occurred to them that
APIs could be protected by copyright.
In Novell v. Microsoft they are half way there. Microsoft stated that it was
company policy to anti-competitively compete against middleware to protect
Windows 95.
Novell have to prove that it was Novell company policy to use WordPerfect on
other window managed platforms to provide a cross-platform middleware
competition for Windows 95 (or Microsoft Office, which is also middleware). All
it takes is an email from the CEO, or a senior manager in product development or
marketing setting that as company policy.
They do not have to prove that they intended to continue to provide the advanced
features already on DOS or that they wished to introduce the Windows 95 features
on the other platforms. Those were, in the case, just the tools of
anti-competitive behaviour. The company policy of providing WP on those other
windowed platforms is sufficient.
Oicks don't count.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
