|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
I think the judge has shown his cards on this one. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
I'm guessing you are right. If Judge Alsup determines SSO/API are not
protectable by copyright as matter of law, and the appeals court disagrees and
says "no, such copyrightability is matter for finder of fact" and remands, they
can all save their car fare.
--- Real Programmers mangle their own
memory. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:16 AM EDT |
That gives Google two outs, doesn't it? If I understand you, even if the jury
finds infringement, he can overrule them. But if the jury finds no
infringement, he has nothing to rule on.
Which means it's bad for Oracle, because Google can convince either of them,
while Oracle must convince both.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
I suppose that he can just declare the motion moot, if the jury find no
infringement in the APIs.
Oh, wasn't Timsort called by the Oracle APIs? That does seem to mean that there
was de minimus infringement of 9 lines and so the Rule 50 motion is unlikely to
be mooted.
If I find that Google droned on at length about timsort just to put bait in my
patented better mousetrap... well, they just better hadn't!
They wouldn't look that far ahead, would they?
That would be a 'yes', then.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|