decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
But then they wouldn't have had even a faint case. | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
But then they wouldn't have had even a faint case.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT
No, they should be allowed to claim one thing for
infringement, and another thing for damages. Consistency
means nothing.

De minimis doesn't apply because the whole work is that
file. The whole work is also the whole of java which is
being damaged. The whole work is also the letters used to
type out the files, and the character encoding. Also basic
logic and lack of it is the whole work, so using any
argument (whether good or bad) in defence is infringement in
itself.

Google shouldn't have copied anything, it's all Oracle's -
they even have copyright on the ideas. But also by copying
less than everything is terrible and must be punished.

In fact if Google had copied nothing at all, and based
Android on a different language entirely, Oracle should have
the right to damages for not supporting Java and dooming it
to irrelevance. Google should just pay up loads now.

They need breaks like this, so nobody should ask them to
prove copyright registrations on any of the elements or the
whole.

Does Google just have no respect for how much money Oracle
paid for Sun?

/sarcasm

With apologies to that crackpot "former litigator" who wrote
that article the other day. I've used most of his material,
so I will be sued next.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'm sick of Oracle's whining...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 08:04 PM EDT
I read the brief. I am getting tired of their synthetic
arguments. It's all made up hyperbole.

Gringo
Sent from my Android phone

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )