Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT |
Does that mean there is a possibility that the Judge will not
decide on the API copyrightability? After all this time?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
If whoever on the jury believed that SSO was fair use, there is no way they will
award damages even if the judge directs them that they should be considered not
to be fair use. I think this is the real reason Oracle wants a different jury.
They detect, rightly so, that someone does not like their arguments, and that
damages won't go their way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
I think his plan was to have Oracle win on SSO liability and then let the jury
decide damages. He would then top it off by ruling that APIs could not be
copyrighted. If his ruling got overturned then there would be no need for a new
trial. But now, as anonymous says above, it makes no sense to ask a jury to
decide on damage amounts when they don't agree that any damaged occurred. It
would just be a waste of time regardless of the outcome. If they agreed then the
loser would claim that at least one jury was acting irrationally.
I still
think Alsup will eventually rule that APIs cannot be copyrighted. If that
ruling gets overturned then there will probably need to be a new trial (ugh).
It makes sense for that new jury to decide on damage amounts (assuming they
decide in favor of Oracle on liability) so absolutely nothing is gained by
having this jury look at SSO damages.
--- Our job is to remind
ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
No you are confused. The copyrightability of
the APIs is a question of law, not fact. He
can't give it to the jury to decide.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:10 PM EDT |
The jury is hung over damages on the SSO by virtue of them being hung over
whether Google's use is fair use. If Google's use is fair use, then no damages.
? If no damages, then Google's use was fair use? So, there is no ruling that
Google is liable for any infringement of the SSO.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|