|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:29 AM EDT |
We've heard (from a considerable distance, in my case), a lot about 'activist
judges' in the US. It seems to me that in the few cases I'm interested in where
BS&F is representing one of the parties, BS&F is engaged in 'activist
lawyering', trying to get some innovative reading of the statutes into the case
law.
With SCO v IBM (which still lies on somebody's docket), it was in re what a
contract might prevent IBM from doing with code IBM itself had written; with SCO
v Novell, whether one could slander a title to copyright; and now with Oracle v
Google whether the Java API is copyrightable, and furthermore infringed by the
necessarily compatible Android re-implementation.
There's a nice symmetry to the last two: it turned out that SCO never had any
title to copyrights capable of being slandered, and now here comes Google saying
(IIUC) that Oracle hasn't registered copyrights that support their current
infringement claims.
---
(c) assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|