4 ms·

Under the Copyright Act, the judge has discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505 https:

by dctoedt 10y ago

Under the Copyright Act, the judge has discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505

koolba 10y ago
> Under the Copyright Act, the judge has discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. [0] I think that'd be good for the ecosystem as it'd send a message that there will be consequence for pursuing frivolous lawsuits.
- throwawaykeno 10y ago
  I don't think it's fair to call this law suit frivolous. From a developer perspective, the ideal and just end result has always seemed rather obvious. However, the multi-year history of this case demonstrates the correct legal answer not so obvious, at least from a legal perspective. For example, settling the issue on fair use was definitely not how most people thought/hoped this would shake out way back in the beginning of the law suit(s).
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    If I learned one thing from the SCO mess, it's that a high-powered law firm can take absolutely no case and make it last at least a decade.
  - sounds 10y ago
    This law suit is frivolous based on the assumption that APIs are not copyrightable (a very reasonable assumption in 2009).
    - icebraining 10y ago
      But the result of the trial was that they are copyrightable, so clearly it wasn't frivolous.
    - geofft 10y ago
      The appellate court ruled that the law is that APIs are copyrightable, and sent it back. The jury decision here was that Google made fair use of a copyrighted API, not that APIs aren't copyrightable.
- ghaff 10y ago
  It may be frustrating when these sorts of cases wind their way slowly and expensively through the legal system only to achieve (sometimes) obviously correct results. However, that's actually a much better thing than having a person or persons handing down a decision based on what seems obviously right.

by dctoedt 10y ago

Under the Copyright Act, the judge has discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505

koolba 10y ago

> Under the Copyright Act, the judge has discretion to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. [0] I think that'd be good for the ecosystem as it'd send a message that there will be consequence for pursuing frivolous lawsuits.

throwawaykeno 10y ago
I don't think it's fair to call this law suit frivolous. From a developer perspective, the ideal and just end result has always seemed rather obvious. However, the multi-year history of this case demonstrates the correct legal answer not so obvious, at least from a legal perspective. For example, settling the issue on fair use was definitely not how most people thought/hoped this would shake out way back in the beginning of the law suit(s).
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  If I learned one thing from the SCO mess, it's that a high-powered law firm can take absolutely no case and make it last at least a decade.
- sounds 10y ago
  This law suit is frivolous based on the assumption that APIs are not copyrightable (a very reasonable assumption in 2009).
  - icebraining 10y ago
    But the result of the trial was that they are copyrightable, so clearly it wasn't frivolous.
  - geofft 10y ago
    The appellate court ruled that the law is that APIs are copyrightable, and sent it back. The jury decision here was that Google made fair use of a copyrighted API, not that APIs aren't copyrightable.
ghaff 10y ago
It may be frustrating when these sorts of cases wind their way slowly and expensively through the legal system only to achieve (sometimes) obviously correct results. However, that's actually a much better thing than having a person or persons handing down a decision based on what seems obviously right.