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
Statutory Damages | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Statutory Damages
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT
I think the Jury gets to decide on the damages.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Statutory Damages
Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT
Google clearly was not willfully infringing: they removed the test files soon after they identified.

That fact alone doesn't demonstrate that they were not willfully infringing. I think they made their case that they weren't willfully infringing by showing how the code slipped in, but the mere fact that they removed the code doesn't prove anything. They could have reconsidered and decided that the danger of discovery was too great.

What I'm really surprised about is that nobody has raised the issue of scènes à faire. There's really only so many ways you can write a simple range check. The copied comments are more of a smoking gun than the code, and the jury seems to have thrown out the other comments. Perhaps de minimis will make scènes à faire moot.

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light.

[ 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 )