Jury instruction 26.
Now, I will explain the law governing
Google’s
defense based on the statutory right of anyone to make “fair
use” of
copyrighted works. Anyone may use any copyrighted
work in a reasonable way
under the circumstances without the
consent of the copyright owner if it would
advance the
public interest. Such use of a copyrighted work is called a
“fair
use.” The owner of a copyright cannot prevent others
from making a fair use of
the owner’s copyrighted work. For
example, fair use may include use for
criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research.
From the article you
quote :-
Thompson did suggest there was a general sense
among
some jurors that Oracle's intellectual property claims
might not be in the
public's best interest.
Or to switch that around... Allowing
google's "Fair Use"
defense would "advance the public interest". Thus the
Jury's
evaluation of whether Google's usage would "advance the
public
interest" is very much on topic, as per the Jury
Instructions.
As
opposed to what the AppleVSamsung jury which basically
ignored the jury
instructions... BY THEIR OWN DESCRIPTION.
Well, that's not
patent law is it? That's just
technical guidance.
You miss the
point. If they had followed the jury
instructions as they were told to, it
would have told them
what the requirements are for Prior Art. Feel free to look it up right
now, it's under the heading
"FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 31 UTILITY
PATENTS—ANTICIPATION"
.
Now that you've had a chance to familiarise
yourself... i
ask you this question. Where does the Jury Instruction say
that
something "not being able to run on the same processor"
would invalidate the
prior art?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
