4 ms·
One thing this article doesn't mention, which I had mentioned on the previous thread, is that this really feels like 'false advertising' was used because they c
by pie_flavor 5y ago
One thing this article doesn't mention, which I had mentioned on the previous thread, is that this really feels like 'false advertising' was used because they couldn't make 'copyright violation' stick. If so, this is the exact opposite of a victory for OSI, as the court judged in favor of the guys making things not-open-source and against the guys trying to make it open-source.
- jcranmer 5y agoI took a quick look at the procedural history of the case (see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16272543/neo4j-inc-v-purethink-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16272543/neo4j-inc-v-pu...). In the original filing, there were only essentially trademark complaints, although this was later amended to include a copyright complaint. The request for summary judgement didn't ask for summary judgement on all of the claims--only the trademark claim. Thus, the copyright violation bits are still a live controversy (undergoing discovery for roughly the next several months) and would presumably be resolved by the actual jury trial requested, whenever that comes about.