|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT |
I'm relying on observing what has transpired all over the US and the planet in
courts over the past decade or so. The jury will find on fact issues, which will
become part of the record of this case, and *will* definitely be used by
subsequent lawsuits. Have you learned nothing at all on Groklaw?
Yes, the jury is not ruling on the law, just the facts but the facts are used to
make a ruling, which ruling becomes precedent and hence the law. So stop and
think and stop jumping to any conclusions not based on facts and history. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Oliver on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
The question is really how the judge phrases the judgement
not what the jury say.
I.e. the if the jury return "Fair Use" then the judgement
will probably be construed at some point in the future to
set the precedent to be that APIs are copyrightable. This
won't be the case, as almost certainly the judge will say
explicitly that this case does not set that precedent, but
it doesn't mean that it won't be used in that way.
However if the jury does return "Fair Use" then it might be
considered as a precedent that a clean room implementation
is "Fair Use" of an API irrespective of whether it can be
copyrighted. That is almost as valuable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|