Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT |
I'm pretty sure that fact is already part of the record relating to those 9
lines of code, so there was probably no need to mention it again for the appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
Unfortunately you are correct - as far as the law is concerned the reasons for
doing something "intentionally" don't matter. This issue is not
whether it was done intentionally for any improper purpose (e.g. "for
reasons of conversion"), but if it was done intentionally as opposed to
inadvertently or in error. It's clear from the record that is was done
intentionally for copyright purposes.
Fortunately, this also has no bearing whatsoever on the de minimis analysis,
which I believe that Google should prevail on in its appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
I am curious - was the function donated to Java first, or to Android? The same
person put into both, so which one came first?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|