|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 08:02 PM EDT |
Think about it..
Set aside the whole API thing
Set aside Q1
Set Aside Q2
Look at Q3, Look at the Jury instructions, look at the standards , Look at how
it is framed
The "Standard" for comparison in Q3 is
<whole work>=<the file> (+ <comments> for Q3C)
<comparison>=<substantial similarity>
A 9 lines from one function in a file of 900 lines
B 8 (conceded) directly copied files, 100% copying
C 4 lines of comments
A Infringed
(the whole file containing those 9 lines is substantially similar in Android and
Java SE, Oracle concede Android did not copy the implementation, i.e. they are
not the same, yet the Jury says they are).
B Not Infringed
(Google admitted they copied them 100%, but they are *NOT* substantially similar
despite Google admitting that they *actually* copied them [by reverse
engineering] )
C Who cares? look at the last two!
I mean seriously, what is going on?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:42 AM EDT |
Chicken feed costs money. 9 lines is well within the realm of fair use from
15,000,000 lines. This is zero infringement.
Exactly what the judge said, no liability.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|