3 ms·
>The timing is irrelevant. Not entirely; it might make a difference in how hard it is for Oracle to prove willful infringement (which increases the damages. A
by metageek 16y ago
>The timing is irrelevant.
Not entirely; it might make a difference in how hard it is for Oracle to prove willful infringement (which increases the damages.
And even if it's irrelevant to the case, it's still an interesting question.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y agoAgree it's an interesting question but I don't see how the timing impacts proof of whether it was wilful or not. Google inherit everything the previous developer did including the intent or otherwise. It doesn't get to say "but we didn't know when we bought it", that's what due diligence and contacts are for.
- metageek 16y ago(a) If Android, Inc., didn't have all the policies in place that larger companies do (e.g., code review), then it would have been easier for a naïve engineer to make the mistake. If so, it might actually not be willful. (b) The longer ago it happened, the more likely it is that any evidence of how it happened has been lost. If so, even if it was willful, Oracle might have trouble proving it.
- spiffworks 16y agoUnless I am mistaken, willful infringement applies to patents, whereas this only proves willful copyright infringement. Are the willful infringement clauses for copyright as well?
- metageek 16y agoI think so; willful infringement triggers the triple-damages provisions.