decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
David Boies: Sow's Ear==>>Silk Purse | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The question was badly worded
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 10:12 PM EDT
It didn't ask whether Google HAD a valid fair use defense. It asked "did
Google RELY on this". It is a rather odd wording when you think about it.

I would have answered the same way as the jury. Google clearly had a fair use
defence, but they didn't rely on it.

1. The copying wrt the range check in Timsort and the test files) was
inadvertent. Google didn't decide to do this RELYING on fair use to excuse the
lack of a license.

2. The use of the API was something they didn't dream they needed a defence for.
Once again they didn't RELY on fair use in deciding to do this. They didn't
think they needed to.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

David Boies: Sow's Ear==>>Silk Purse
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 10:14 PM EDT
It's been some mighty fine lawyering by BSF et al to manage to baffle,
bamboozle, and flim-flam an otherwise straightforward, common sense issue to the
point where the jury doesn't know whether it's coming or going.

The Grand Strategy:

1)Steal all the APIs in the world
2)Cause complete disruption of worldwide software ecosystem
3) ?????
4) Profit!

I mean, it'll work, right?

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Fair Use is not latches
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:55 AM EDT
On the one hand, the jury found that Sun/Oracle behaved in a manner in which Google would reasonably believe that they did not need an license (covering SSO)

And then they say they couldn't come to a conclusion Re: Fair Use
Oracle acting in a manner in which Google would reasonably believe that they did not need a license gives Google a chance at a defense based on the pricipal of Latches, which is that they could claim that they relied on the past behavior and statements of the copyright owner. That has nothing to do with fair use. Fair use has to do with a number of things, like how much of the work as a whole was copied (de minimus), and the intended use of the copied material (parody or commentary or education vs. commercial), but fair use has nothing to do with the past behavior of the copyright owner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )