|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 06:24 AM EDT |
No offense was taken - I was really genuinely confused by your response.
I think that if they had wanted to spend the time and money (and maybe they have
- I haven't read all the filings or even all of the reports here) Google could
have argued very forcefully for non-copyrightability of the code for both merger
and scenes a faire reasons. I don't think that Google and counsel though it
would be a worthwhile use of resources, especially since Bloch couldn't state
definitively that he re-wrote it and it happened to turn out identically (which
may or may not have made it OK - there's a presumption that access plus identity
implies copying - once that is established then it needs to be refuted by the
other side).
But maybe they did and it will come out in the rule 50 motions? Or was that one
of the motions that was just denied?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|