Here are two stories addressing the jury instructions to
show that the Jury was
not being asked about ownership. It
should be also clear (especially now) that
it was not in
Google's interest to dig into ownership at that time.
The
first
Groklaw story was October 19, 2011 - see
Oracle v.
Google - Trial Briefs, Special Verdict Forms, and
Jury Instructions. In
that story, it is interesting that
Oracle did not comprehend what the copyright
registration as
the first question only pertained to Oracle’s copyrights
in
the Java software platform and none referred to de
minimis copying (or
perhaps someone in Oracle's team was
aware of the potential issue). Yet Google
used phases like
sufficient amount that, in hindsight, clearly
indicate
Google knew what was actually copyrighted.
More recently was this April 26
2012 story Oracle
v. Google - Day 9 Filings -
Jury Instructions on Copyright. Even Mark said
...
therefore what constitutes
the "work as a whole" that is at issue is
manifest in
Google's response to the proposed jury instructions!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|