|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 12:35 AM EDT |
> I don't see any citations of the Law.
Maybe that's because the Law has thus far ignored
the many good reasons you observed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mpellatt on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 01:41 AM EDT |
| The legal argument for upholding the original decision is
that it is based on
existing written and case law. Google
can make this case quite happily on their
own, with all the
necessary references.
Oracle, whatever it might claim, is
arguing for an extension
of the subject matter coverage of Copyright Law. This
will,
almost by definition, have a technological and economic
impact and it is
this that the amici brief addresses.
Courts continuously change the detailed
interpretation of
existing laws. Such is the nature of legislation. It is
usually small changes around the edges. This is a land grab
for Copyright Law,
and therefore these arguments need to
made strongly and loudly by the best
people in the field.
It will be interesting to see if anyone comes up with a
brief for Oracle's position, and if so, who it is. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 03:04 AM EDT |
From the Legal
Information Institution (at Cornell University):
17 USC §
102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general
(b) In no case
does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea,
procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work
Also, since the amici are
technology experts, not legal, experts, it would make perfect sense for their
arguments to be mainly based on technology, not legalities, but not only was
§ 102(b) mentioned repeatedly, the brief cites many of the most
prominent case-law precedents.
One of Oracle's main (yet totally bogus)
legal arguments in their appeal is that Alsup's ruling has upset the current
status quo. This brief (signed by many of the people who established the status
quo in the computer world) shows in gory detail how that argument by Oracle is
full of baloney.
I'm sorry if this is terribly insulting but your backhanded
accusation that this brief contains "no law" makes me wonder if you are
perchance a member of Oracle's legal team. I'm reminded of the
aphorism:
If you have the facts on your side, pound the
facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you have
neither on your side, pound the table.
This brief
clearly shows that the facts are on Google's side but that does not mean the law
is therefore on Oracle's side. The only thing available for Oracle to
legitimately pound on is the table.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves
that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
