Google open innovation powered by efficient infringement

13 03 2017

Given the growth of efficient infringement, Google can operate in an open innovation way, applying open source principles to patented technologies from outside of the company as well as from those inside the company and partners… If it were not for efficient infringement it would be impossible for one company to be involved in as many different areas of endeavor as Google/Alphabet have attempted. The only feasible way for them to hunt for the next revenue stream seems to be to scatter-shot innovation by going in numerous different directions without any real focus. Of course, that requires them to ignore the rights of others and pretend we live in an open source world without any patent rights. Ironically, it is this disparate and uncoordinated approach to innovating that is also preventing Google from developing any kind of mastery outside of their core search competency and revenue generating model.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/03/09/google-open-innovation-efficient-infringement/id=78977/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



2H 2016 Quick Links, Part 2 (Copyright & Open Access)

3 01 2017

Copyright

* Goldstein v. Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc., 2016 WL 4257457 (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2016)

* Seide v. Level-(1) Global Solutions, LLC, 2016 WL 4206076 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2016):

* BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc., 2016 WL 4224964 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2016):

* Disney Enterprises v. VidAngel, 2:16-cv-04109 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016). There is no space-shifting exception to 1201’s anti-circumvention restrictions. Also:

The Family Home Movie Act didn’t apply because:

VidAngel’s defense failed in part because:

* Public Knowledge: The Growing List of How the Copyright Office Has Failed Us. Full report.

* Sisyphus Touring, Inc. v. TMZ Productions, Inc., CV No. 15-09512-RSWL-PJW (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016):

* Ouellette v. Viacom International, Inc., 2016 WL 7407244 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016). Another 512(f) case fails due to Rossi. Prior blog posts (1, 2).

* Opinion Corp. v. Roca Labs, Inc., 2016 WL 6824383 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2016). You can’t even win a 17 USC 512(f) case on a default judgment.

* TorrentFreak: [Canadian] Court Awards Damages Following Bogus DMCA Takedowns

* Devil’s Advocate LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 15-1048. (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016).

Prior blog post.

* The Board of Immigration Appeals holds that a person can be deported for criminal copyright infringement because it is a crime of moral turpitude.

* Ars Technica on EU’s proposed copyright reforms (hint: it’s not going well). Financial Times: “The kindest interpretation one can place on these proposals is that the commission has simply misunderstood the digital marketplace. A more cynical view is that it has caved in to fierce lobbying by a number of powerful European publishers”

* A new chapter in the linking saga

* Michael Geist: Music Canada Reverses on Years of Copyright Lobbying: Now Says WIPO Internet Treaties Were Wrong Guess

* Kirtsaeng denied his attorneys’ fees again.

* ABA Journal: Who’s the pirate? Lawyers join forces to fight allegedly bogus claims of pay-TV theft

* GQ: An Oral History of “We Built This City,” the Worst Song of All Time

Open Access

* James Grimmelmann: “Alternative Publishing Models For Cost-Conscious Professors”

* FTC Charges Academic Journal Publisher OMICS Group Deceived Researchers

* Does clickbait apply to academia?

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/12/2h-2016-quick-links-part-2-copyright-open-access.html and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Google’s fair use victory is good for open source

3 06 2016
Oracle and Google have been fighting for six years about whether Google infringed copyright by its use of 37 of the 166 packages that constitute the Java API in the Android software platform for smart phones. Last week, Google won a jury trial verdict that its reuse of the Java API elements was fair use.

Let me first explain the main facts and claims in the lawsuit, and then why Google’s fair use victory is a good thing not only for Google but also for open source developers, for software developers more generally, and for the public.

more

The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/googles-fair-use-victory-is-good-for-open-source/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



The Google/Oracle decision was bad for copyright and bad for software

3 06 2016
Oracle’s long-running lawsuit against Google has raised two contentious questions. The first is whether application programming interfaces (APIs) should be copyrightable at all. The second is whether, if they are copyrightable, repurposing portions of those APIs can be done without a license in the name of “fair use.”

In the first trial between the companies, the court ruled that Google had copied portions of Java but that these copied portions were mere APIs; as such, they were not protected by copyright law. An appeals court later reversed this part of the decision, asserting that the “structure, sequence, and organization” of an API was in fact protectable by copyright. The case was then returned to the trial court to ascertain whether the (previously acknowledged) copying of (now copyright-protected) Oracle material was an infringement of copyright.

more

The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/06/the-googleoracle-decision-was-bad-for-copyright-and-bad-for-software/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Op-ed: Oracle attorney says Google’s court victory might kill the GPL

30 05 2016

Annette Hurst is an attorney at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe who represented Oracle in the recent Oracle v. Google trial. This op-ed represents her own views and is not intended to represent those of her client or Ars Technica.

The Oracle v. Google trial concluded yesterday when a jury returned a verdict in Google’s favor. The litigation began in 2010, when Oracle sued Google, saying that the use of Java APIs in Android violated copyright law. After a 2012 trial, a judge held that APIs can’t be copyrighted at all, but that ruling was overturned on appeal. In the trial this month, Google successfully argued that its use of Java APIs, about 11,500 lines of code in all, was protected by “fair use.”

The developer community may be celebrating today what it perceives as a victory in Oracle v. Google. Google won a verdict that an unauthorized, commercial, competitive, harmful use of software in billions of products is fair use. No copyright expert would have ever predicted such a use would be considered fair. Before celebrating, developers should take a closer look. Not only will creators everywhere suffer from this decision if it remains intact, but the free software movement itself now faces substantial jeopardy.

 

more

The content in this post was found at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/op-ed-oracle-attorney-says-googles-court-victory-might-kill-the-gpl/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.