|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
It didn't ask whether Google HAD a valid fair use defense. It asked "did
Google RELY on this". It is a rather odd wording when you think about it.
I would have answered the same way as the jury. Google clearly had a fair use
defence, but they didn't rely on it.
1. The copying wrt the range check in Timsort and the test files) was
inadvertent. Google didn't decide to do this RELYING on fair use to excuse the
lack of a license.
2. The use of the API was something they didn't dream they needed a defence for.
Once again they didn't RELY on fair use in deciding to do this. They didn't
think they needed to.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 10:14 PM EDT |
It's been some mighty fine lawyering by BSF et al to manage to baffle,
bamboozle, and flim-flam an otherwise straightforward, common sense issue to the
point where the jury doesn't know whether it's coming or going.
The Grand Strategy:
1)Steal all the APIs in the world
2)Cause complete disruption of worldwide software ecosystem
3) ?????
4) Profit!
I mean, it'll work, right?
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
On the one hand, the jury found that Sun/Oracle behaved in a manner
in which Google would reasonably believe that they did not need an license
(covering SSO)
And then they say they couldn't come to a conclusion Re:
Fair Use
Oracle acting in a manner in which Google would
reasonably believe that they did not need a license gives Google a chance at a
defense based on the pricipal of Latches, which is that they could claim that
they relied on the past behavior and statements of the copyright owner. That has
nothing to do with fair use. Fair use has to do with a number of things, like
how much of the work as a whole was copied (de minimus), and the intended use of
the copied material (parody or commentary or education vs. commercial), but fair
use has nothing to do with the past behavior of the copyright owner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|