Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
Huzzah! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
I'd just like to say "Thank you" to the members of this jury, who gave
up weeks of their lives to this trial, and did their best to navigate some very
technical subjects that they knew nothing about before this trial.
Thank you for your conscientious effort.
P.S. You reached the correct verdict. :P[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:23 PM EDT |
I'll argue that this case was a good example of how our
legal/copyright/patent system isn't broken. Basically, if
both the plaintiff and defendant have access to infinite
lawyers are are willing to spend the money - and settle on a
competent judge - there's a good chance of a reasonable
verdict.
The real problem is that plaintiffs and defendents without
infinite money can't afford to defend these cases and risk
the potential randomness of trial.
Anyways - happy on patent ruling. Happy on limited scope of
copyright infringement. Wondering if Alsup will rule on
copyright of API.
Of course, Ellison just successfully wasted a ton of
Google's time and money...oh well.
Would love to see Google adopting a tertiary goal of
bankrupting evil companies by giving away low cost or free
software. (Looking at M$ and Oracle.) Um. Wait. Is that
already happening?
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|