|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
After reading the summary statements and the jury instructions, my gut feeling
is that they will find that Google did copy the APIs. That is not necessarily a
bad thing because it will force the judge to make a decision on whether they can
be copyrighted in the first place. It may be uncomfortable for the judge but the
feeling I get is that he will probably say they are not.
Even if the judge decides against Google, they will be able to afford to appeal.
Imagine if Oracle had picked on someone smaller who did not have the resources
to properly defend themselves. Would you really want that case being the one to
set the precedent?
Having a definitive statement that APIs are no able to be copyrighted is a far
better outcome than having the jury decide that there was no copying and leaving
the situation in limbo.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 11:00 PM EDT |
Even if he does have to rule, it wouldn't really be "making law from the
bench", because that's pretty much already the law and precedent, and he'd
just be following. Oracle's claims that an API can be copyrightable pretty much
go against all precedent. Rejecting that would simply be adding to the body of
consistent case law on the matter.
But it probably would be easier for him if the jury moots the point.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 07:58 AM EDT |
The judge is absolutely right in not wanting to make a ruling to serve as future
precedent, which is part of my problem. From his handling of the case so far, I
really want this to be the judge who *does* establish precedent. Even if he
rules
in a way I do not agree, he has been asking all the right technical questions to
demonstrate a real understanding of the problem. If he rules in an unfortunate
direction, I would trust that really is the way the law leans unless we can get
congress to change it - although naturally I hope the law leans against
copyrighting the foundations our industry has been built on these last 50 years
or so.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|