|
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Sunday, August 05 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
Google brought up the issue of the blank CD, and thus flawed copyright
registration, before the trial started. But it was after earlier stipulations
that they wouldn't litigate Oracle's copyright registration.
Those stipulations are common to simplify the trial. Otherwise every piece of
evidence would need to be tediously established.
Google position is that were accepting Oracle's statement that the copyrights
were valid and correctly registered. Once they found this not to be the case,
they should have been allowed to withdraw their stipulation.
The judge ruled that the stipulation should stand. This was a reasonable
ruling, since the blank CD might well have been an innocent clerical error. It
would have also been reasonable to rule the opposite, since the registration was
clearly flawed. ("Technically correct is the best kind of correct."
-- #1)
What was left incompletely stipulated, and is still at issue, is whether the
copyright registration was for a compilation or every element of the work.
Google has a strong argument that their stipulation was with the understanding
that this was a compilation copyright since Sun/Oracle clearly incorporated the
work of others, in some cases without credit.
If this is an open question still to be resolved, or the details of damages is
still open to be considered, it's reasonable to re-open the issue of the flawed
copyright registration. Oracle got lucky with the stipulation and subsequent
ruling, but they shouldn't continue to be shielded when they are re-opening
related issues.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hairbear on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT |
If Google win the argument on the 'bank CD' issue, it wouldn't surprise me to
see Oracle argue that what they copyrighted was nothing, and that 9 lines of
code is very significant when compared to nothing.
hairbear
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|