|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
Note that Judge Alsup had specifically ordered the jury to make their finding
under the assumption that the "Sequence Structure and Organization"
were copyrighted. Once he ruled that premise to be false it was entirely
reasonable for him to conclude that no reasonable jury, given accurate and
correct instructions, could return a finding of infringement.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT |
It was because Google presented no evidence to support that test usage was not
significant usage, but Oracle did. Judge Alsup's logic does not apply to this
case. Had Google presented even the flimsiest defense to show something such as
the test files were never used for testing, I don't believe Judge Alsup would
have overridden the jury. Their de minimis defense was not relevant because they
copied files in their entirety.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|