Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
Well, for some definition of "valid".
Filed too late, on something they didn't own, but... yes, they were valid in
terms of the paperwork at the copyright office.
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
SCOX had copyrights on manuals, but not on the precioussssss code that they
copied from BSD and were suing over.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:20 PM EDT |
It's funny because it's true. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
Even SCO could prove it at least had a valid
copyright
registration.
Yeah, its pretty cheeky of Van Nest to hold
Oracle to not only the letter of the copyright law, but the spirit too.
Talk
about petty and mean.
If the "Wow" thread above is more than urban legend,
and Copyright Office, upon further request for clarification, comes back and
says to the effect
"No. We didn't say the CDROM was unreadable. We
said it was blank. Nothing had ever been written on it. We know a
coaster when we see one. This isn't it."
This is Java. Designed
from the get-go to be a huge profit center for Sun. Arguably the most productive
programming language since... COBOL. And without copyright
registration?
Worse, with (what may appear) deliberately invalid copyright
registration??
I mean, what's a poor federal district judge supposed to
think???
Stay 'tooned!
[me lays in more
popcorn]
--- Real Programmers mangle their own memory. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|