decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
which donation came first? | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Google's Turn - Files JMOL Motion re rangeCheck function ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT
I'm pretty sure that fact is already part of the record relating to those 9
lines of code, so there was probably no need to mention it again for the appeal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google's Turn - Files JMOL Motion re rangeCheck function ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT
Unfortunately you are correct - as far as the law is concerned the reasons for
doing something "intentionally" don't matter. This issue is not
whether it was done intentionally for any improper purpose (e.g. "for
reasons of conversion"), but if it was done intentionally as opposed to
inadvertently or in error. It's clear from the record that is was done
intentionally for copyright purposes.

Fortunately, this also has no bearing whatsoever on the de minimis analysis,
which I believe that Google should prevail on in its appeal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

which donation came first?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT
I am curious - was the function donated to Java first, or to Android? The same
person put into both, so which one came first?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )