4 ms·
>They only got that ruling by appealing a copyright question to the patent appeals court, That's not true and doesn't really fit within any legal timeline. Tha
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>They only got that ruling by appealing a copyright question to the patent appeals court,
That's not true and doesn't really fit within any legal timeline. That's my point.
- ilovetux 8y agoI believe that they are asking why do you believe that's not true. Your assertions are vague and do not help the discussion.
- kadendogthing 8y agoIt's not true that they won the legality of the case through an appeal. The original ruling sided with oracle on technical and legal matters. They just weren't awarded damages.
- geofft 8y agoBy "the original ruling" are you referring to https://www.eff.org/files/alsup_api_ruling.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/alsup_api_ruling.pdf , which says, "on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act. Therefore, Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization is DISMISSED. To the extent stated herein, Google’s Rule 50 motions regarding copyrightability are GRANTED"? Can you point to what part of this ruling sided with Oracle on either technical or legal matters? (With the exception of rangeCheck.) Or can you link to what ruling you mean by "the original ruling"?