|
Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT |
post corrections here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
newspicks thread here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:13 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Thank you for your support
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast
Caleb Garling @CalebGarling
Waiting Game. Looks like the jury
won't deliberate until 4
today (Alsup offered the idea) but will go until 1.
Unless
they reach a decision--- IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT |
Under the virtual identity test, and with the following
instructions:
Similarly, for the purposes of Question No. 2 in
the
Special Verdict Form, the “work as a whole” means the
contents (including
name, declaration and English-language
comments) of the documentation for all
of the 166 API
packages (not just the 37) in the registered
work.
It looks like it would be impossible for a jury that
understood the issues to rule for infringement.
Am I missing something? If
it's that straightforward why is
it even before a jury, the facts are already
clear and
apparently agreed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
Fellow jurors,
if we rule in favour of Oracle either in the Copyright phase or the Patent
phase, we have to sit here for more weeks on the Damages phase, whilst our
bosses are getting more and more upset at the time we take off work.
But if we rule in favour of Google on each of the first two stages, we get to
skip a third of the trial. All those voting for? It's Unanimous then!
:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
BrandonBailey ‏ @BrandonBailey
Oracle seems worried jurors will consider use of Apache APIs as a justification.
Google wants them to consider it wasn't copied directly
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
.
... was not decided. Google has moved for a mistrial on 1-a. Some jurors
thought it was fair use. If the Judge doesn't hold that API's are not
copyrightable, Google should ask the Judge to stay the judgment while they try
"fair use" again. They can't appeal it until it is all final. It is
the kind of issue that may never be unanimous. They can have an annual trial as
a monument to our legal system. Maybe some year we will have a good API
analogy.
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|