|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:07 AM EDT |
I haven't analysed the verdict closely because I don't want to look the gift
horse in the mouth.
I think you have it. I had already come to the conclusion that the jury were
trying very hard and using everything that they had been told. The request to
continue after the weekend was confirmation.
I don't think that developers are generally aware of the copyright dangers of
decompilation. Perhaps it is more the case that high profile and open source
development teams have to be more aware. I think you are spot on that getting
rid of the softies from the jury left them dependent on the court evidence and
instructions. They had no court basis to question the legality of
decompilation.
The fact that Oracle publish the OpenJDK would be a similar issue. Their
instructions could not make it clear that publishing the OpenJDK code did not
licence other code.
For a case without merit, the case was horribly tortuous. The judge did well
with the jury briefing and the questions. I don't think there is any room for
Oracle complaint. On the other hand, there wasn't any justification for the
case, either.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
And it is very odd, when Google have basically conceded that indeed all of them
were copied.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT |
I thought these were test files that never shipped, so the
"shipped" Android never contained these files.
Or am I misremembering what files these are?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|