|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 09:50 AM EST |
I doubt if it is a good idea to be seen to be trying to manipulate judges that
way. Bordering on or actual contempt comes to mind for starters.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 11:37 AM EST |
Oracle point is that the undisputed facts foreclose any
reasonable possibility of Google mounting a fair-use defense
(if you skip the whole "abstraction-filtration" analysis).
I tend to agree, though I don't think the appeals court
would be likely to see it that way.
The appeals court will not give any weight to Oracle's
opinion that "a remand [to consider fair use arguments] is
pointless." If they think that the lower court has erred in
its non-infringement finding and also has not considered (or
not correctly considered) fair use arguments, they will
remand.
However, it's unlikely they'll get that far, for the same
reason the lower court didn't. The lower court didn't
devote any attention to fair use arguments for the simple
reason that it wasn't necessary. Google didn't copy
anything copyrightable (with a couple of exceptions that
never made it into the released Android code, IIRC), and the
appeals court is likely to agree with the district court.
In other words, Oracle is basically bluffing here. Fair
use is not where this case will be decided. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
