|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 02:28 AM EDT |
The pity of it is that Google actually *did* copy some
files and some lines. Guilty and they finally admitted it.
They get assessed $0.
That lady, Tanenbaum (?), she had to pay beacoup dollars
for a few songs that were found on her hard drive. It was
never proven that anyone downloaded from her.
I want to know why Google at least did not have to pay the
Tanenbaum amount? I am not an Oracle fan, but this seems
to me to be unfair ... either to Oracle or to Tanenbaum.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Tennenbaum - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 04:11 AM EDT
- Tennenbaum - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
- Tennenbaum - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT
- Tennenbaum - Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT
- Tenenbaum is a different case - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT
- Tennenbaum - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT
|
|
|
|