decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Question 4 Yes uhh No ...YesNo | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Question 4 Yes uhh No ...YesNo. Only 4A really matters.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT
NO Google in fact did not rely on that "in deciding to use
the structure, sequence, and organization of the copyrighted
compilable code without obtaining a license"

Because Google never made such a decision as suggested in
that question.

However 4A is actually the important question.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

4A seems all-imporant, to me
Authored by: mcinsand on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT
If Sun led Google to believe that no license was required to spread Java through
Android, then Sun and successors lost any rights to claim infringement later; an
organization cannot legally encourage someone to use something freely and then
later try to punish the users for it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Question 4 Yes uhh No ...YesNo
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT

It says to me that the Jury believed Google would have taken the same course of action regardless of what Sun said. But, as it turned out, the Jury thinks Sun said it was okay.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )