|
Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Well first off, 1B has nothing to do with whether the API SSO is copyrightable.
It's about fair use if 1A was determined to be guilty verdict.
However, I can't imagine BSF is happy at all on this verdict. The only thing
they really won was an empty 'guilty' on 1A (which is likely going to result in
a mistrial or nullification if the judge rules against copyrightability), and 9
lines of code that has already been removed. Even that 9 lines will not net
them anywhere near the cost of the case so far, much less appeals.
Not that BSF isn't going to be trumpeting the fact that they got a 'guilty' on
1A. That's how they stay in business, not by winning these wonky cases, they
win by showing potential clients that they can take on these wonky baseless
cases and make it really really hurt for the other team. Basically, they make a
living of causing their client's opponents to pay through the nose to defend
baseless litigation, thus making it easier to negotiate settlements. This is
why people usually settle out of court even on the most baseless of cases,
because lawyers like BSF make a living by making it too expensive to bother
contesting baseless claims.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
The lies do pay off. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|