Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th May 2012 05:00 UTC
Legal "[...] despite Oracle pointing out the commercial success of Android - which would tend to weigh against a finding of fair use - it was clear that Judge Alsup wasn't inclined to side with the company. The judge even scolded Oracle counsel Michael Jacobs when he first argued his case, pointing out that the company's legal team had insisted on a jury trial and that 'now we got their verdict and you want something else'." Someone must be having a bad day.
Thread beginning with comment 517593
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Nine lines of code...
by lemur2 on Thu 10th May 2012 09:17 UTC in reply to "Nine lines of code..."
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

It all comes down to NINE (9) lines of code, now...

A freaking array range-check in java, no less.

And, get this, the programmer accused of doing the copying is the same programmer that wrote the original code...


In order to be a copyright violation, the copied code must constitute a major element of the derivative work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

"In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work)."

Nine lines does not constitute a major element of Dalvik nor Android.

There are no damages to be claimed here.

Reply Parent Score: 10