|
Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
I understand your point about question 4 being reserved for
the
judge
As for Q1 I think you are on a more correct path in regard
to
the question being framed before it was clear to the
judge what the question
was really about.
I think the following correction is more
appropriate:
"As to the compilable code for
the 37
Java API packages in question taken as a
group:
"Has Oracle proven
that Google has copied the overall
structure, sequence and organization of
copyrighted works?"
I think the misunderstanding was a deliberate
ploy by
Oracle. 'Code' is covered by copyright, so convincing the
judge (and
jury) that what Google copied when they copied
the structure, sequence and
organization of the APIs
was, indeed, code they attempted to strengthen
their
position. Time will tell (when the judge hands down his
verdict on this
issue) but it looks like judge Alsup has, at
last, got a very good handle on
the issue.
Oracle also tried to convince the judge and jury the the API
design was covered by copyright because it involved hard
work - I can't
imagine a bricklayer suing a photographer for
taking a photo of the wall he
built on the basis of 'it was
hard work to build the wall'[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|