Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
-- Dr. Mitchell's testimony on behalf of Apple --/ >> -- Dr. Mitchell's
testimony on behalf of Oracle --[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
Not the sort of silly mistake I would make. Well, other than calling SCO, Novell
as I did a couple of days ago. Oh, and...
...well, that's not important, now.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: FrankH on Friday, August 10 2012 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
The following quoted text includes a quotation mark from the previous
text:
"Moreover, Oracle presented no evidence at trial that "[e]ach
source code file in the Java platform" is "recognizable as a self-contained
work."... Thus, even if it were possible to subdivide a registered work, there
is no basis in the record to subdivide the J2SE platform file-by-file into
separate "works."
It should start:
Moreover, Oracle
presented no evidence at trial... --- All right now, baby it's
all right now. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|