|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT |
So, the judge should have explained the facts of decompilation to the jury. But,
he should have allowed further exploration of the facts such as whether the
'decompiled' files were actually decompiled and what the original Oracle work
was.
Were the files whole copies or were they only part of bigger files? Do Oracle
own the copyrights to the original files or were they bought-in. Google only say
that they assume that compilation is what happened.
Also, what was the whole work, if it was a decompilation? It wasn't part of the
JDK. Were the files part of the TCK? If that is the case, then the whole work is
the TCK. That has never been openly published. Who can tell what the whole work
is? Certainly not the judge. We need to see the source code to see if it was
decompiled and whether the copied stuff was protectable under the law.
I'd call this a mess if it stood out amongst the rest of the case.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|