|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 07:14 AM EDT |
They didn't wish to lie. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
The concession was stronger than "... that the code was identical, rather
than they actually copied it."
In the jury instructions (27.):
"... Google agrees that the accused lines of code and comments came from
the copyrighted material ..."
I can only guess they think "de minimis" is so obvious, they didn't
want to waste precious time arguing if the work belonged in Java first, and
Android afterwards, with the complexity of Josh Bloch formerly working for Sun,
then Google, and writing the code while he worked at Google, but not for Google,
but for submission to Sun's OpenJDK. I guess.
But I can't get past Sun clinging to 9 lines of rangecheck in the GPL'd OpenJDK
written by a Google employee while he worked at Google, as the primary example
of Google directly infringing Sun's Java copyrights.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|