Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
In an earlier response I mentioned it looked like the BSF touch was no longer
present... I may have to correct that.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 12:34 PM EDT |
The court ruled that SSO was not subject to copyright
protection. As a result, there is no valid legal claim that
can be brough on SSO as a matter of law. Consequently, the
claims Oracle brought on SSO were dismissed by the court as
baseless.
They LOST a motion to have SSO considered a copyrightable
element. Their CLAIMS on SSO were subsequently dismissed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
I don't understand your question, but PJ covered the May 31 opinion
[url=http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/article.php%3fstory=20120531172522459]here[/url].[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|