|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
I can see how it maight be confusing, but the answers match the question
appropriately once you understand what it is that the plaintiff must prove.
If the plaintiff hasn't proven that the amount copied was substantial on a
balance of probabilities, then the copying was de minimis.
This wording, while potentially confusing, preserves the plaintiff's onus to
prove their case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 06:04 AM EDT |
which you clearly have not done, the key issue
is the standard of comparison and the definition of "Whole Work" which
is the baseline for the start of comparison.
Irrespective of your views on Q1/2, this is amply demonstrated in your answer to
question 3 (de-minimis across the board)
The problem being that in the case of question 3 the whole work is defined as
"the individual files", so for
A) Rangecheck: 9 lines out of 900 De-Minimis probably.
C) 4lines of comments in two files, De-Minimis probably.
B) However, the files are a direct copy (or a reversed engineered direct copy),
the standard is substantial similarity, and the breadth of the comparison is
only the file.
except in the sense that these files did not make it into handsets(which I
don't beleive to ba part of the Jury Instruction), this is not de-minimis.
For damages discussions however, I would expect that the standard will be
different. yes it is conceded that the files were copied, in their entirety, but
they are an insignificant chunk , so damages minimal.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|