|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
I'm not sure that it means that the documents aren't copyrighted, but that the
registration was wrong, or that Oracle didn't prove ownership of all 37 APIs
(I'm still not quite sure which of those possibilities Google was arguing). If
it's a registration problem, presumably Oracle could reregister, but it's too
late for this case, and likely any derivative works. If it's that Oracle didn't
prove their ownership to match the registration, the judge may open Oracle's
case to allow them to bring such proof, which is what I read out of the judge
not wanting to leave this issue in the weeds. In either case, it's certainly a
bad case of lawyering on Oracle's side to have not known how the works were
registered and to proceed accordingly.
Perhaps Oracle will have cause for malpractice.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- whoops - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT
- Not know? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:05 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: jvillain on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- whoops - Authored by: eachus on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT
|
|
|
|