Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
You'll notice that Oracle decided to defer the statutory damages. Oracle *is*,
as you say, entitled to damages, and yes, Judge Alsup gets to determine the
amount of the damages (because the two sides stipulated to that, avoiding a
damages phase of the trial); however, Oracle made the decision to take $0. Judge
Alsup did not determine what the damages would have been; Oracle made the
decision not to receive a damages award, so the court does not have to make that
decision.
(You'll also want to re-check your math - it's not $DAMAGES_AMOUNT * 37 because
the API's were declared not covered by copyright. I think you meant
$DAMAGES_AMOUNT * 8 for the copied test files (on which I would still disagree
with you, but I think it's what you were trying to say.))[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
Google, in the copied files, took commercially reasonable measures (for example,
their contract with the developers) to not have them copy the test files. When
they found out, they removed the files.
Likewise, the author of the rangecheck() function was simply rattling off
something simple to make a far more significant piece of work operational, never
expecting those lines to be permanent or actually ship with the end product.
So, as PJ says, there's no willfulness here. Fair damages? Given all the other
things that *could* have been copied, I'm with the court, that's $0.
Now Tennenbaum, that's copyright math -- a poison from the RIAA. Best you not
copy a paragraph from here -- or I'll have you in hock for the rest of your
life! (NOT! -- a snippet this small, or this entire post, should absolutely be
"fair use", so be courteous and keep my name attached)
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|