|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
I'm not familiar with the case or history, but I'd guess
because the law
seems to outrageously penalise media copying
past the point of any sanity. I
don't think any other
industry has the sheer brass balls to lobby for media
style
"Copyright Math" type protections.
Watch the $8 billion iPod
to get an idea of how crazy media
protection is, and how much more they
want.
$8
billion
iPod
The law is wrong if the cost / punishment is orders of
magnitude
out from the costs or seriousness of the offence
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Tennenbaum - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT |
Google went to pretty extreme lengths to avoid any copyright violation.
The nine lines weren't even written by Sun; they were an independent
contribution copied in by a newbie against policy, presumably on the assumption
that as non-Sun code they were OK to copy.
The test files were reverse engineered against Google's explicit instructions
(and are not distributed to end users).
You're probably in more severe breach of copyright when you hum a familiar song
where somebody can hear you.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
I see what you did there. You phrase it as "copy some files and some
lines".
What you don't do is highlight the insignificance of it.
It is 9 lines comprising a function a high school student could write in well
under 30 minutes.
It's a nat's eyelash. It's nothing.
Oh, and some test files that never were distributed in android devices.
Yeah, all of that must add up to some real damages inflicted upon poor Oracle.
Please describe how this nat's eyelash of infringement caused any damage to
Oracle. I would love to hear the tale.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
The case I think you're thinking of is Thomas-Rassett. The highest award
against her was $80,000 per infringement of 24 songs for a total of $1.9
Million. A case which appears* to have just recently been heard in Appeals on
the Constitutionality of such a high damages award.
Joel Tenenbaum is a
male.
* referenced in Wikipedia.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
Well, here's the answer. Others have corrected your
facts, but on the why part:
1. Oracle isn't taking zero forever, in that it wants to
appeal, and its hope is that the SSO of the APIs will be
overturned and they'll get a new trial and beaucoups of
dollars for that.
2. Oracle stipulated about the damages being only
statutory.
3. There's no willfulness proven in this picture.
4. Whether the huge awards in the other two cases is
constitutional is before the court now. That is the
question. I think it'll stand, though. Congress at some point will have to
address whether a law that was designed
to punish people making money from copyright infringement should be identical to
the punishment that is appropriate for some kid sharing with his buddies over
the Internet without making a dime.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
