3 ms·
>especially on tricky areas with very little precedent. "very little precedent"? Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls
by icelandic 14y ago
>especially on tricky areas with very little precedent.
"very little precedent"? Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls decision.
Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs.
>it's been 23 years since Johnson, and many cases (including the ones listed in the linked groklaw article) have touched on very similar areas of IP law. A smoking gun case on APIs is not necessary for there to be applicable precedent.
You are simply wrong on this. Why is a similar case not considered prior applicable precedent?
>EU court decisions certainly do indirectly influence judgements in the US. especially on tricky areas with very little precedent.
Johnson Controls v. Phoenix Control Systems
I don't care if you like Florian or not. look at the facts and decide.
- magicalist 14y ago> "very little precedent"? Judge Alsup specifically told Google's counsel to address the Johnson Controls decision. Yes, and Alsup just asked Google and Oracle to address the EU decision on SAS v. WPL. They've both addressed many other relevant cases. Is this what we're going on? > You are simply wrong on this. Why is a similar case not considered prior applicable precedent? That was not what I wrote. What I said was that Johnson is not the only applicable precedent and that it was ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
- icelandic 14y agoJohnson Controls decision has more weight compared to the EU decision.