Yes, it's an ongoing case, but I actually read the whole case, and I'm almost 100% positive they are going to rule more in favor of Oracle, because Google made stupid claims, one of which is that software is patentable, btw. If you want to learn more about this, I would suggest this video series: https://caseorcontroversy.com/ Btw, there *was* precedent set in the lower districts of this case. To say there was no precedent set is misinformation. Christian Seibold Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, November 26th, 2020 at 2:22 AM, Robert "khuxkm" Miles <khuxkm at tilde.team> wrote: > This conversation is getting away from Gemini, so I'm going to wrap it up here and let us agree to disagree. > > November 26, 2020 3:11 AM, "Krixano" krixano at protonmail.com wrote: > > > First of all, lets not conflate a spec with law. The spec > > > > doesn't have to follow law. A spec is a guideline, it doesn't > > > > have to match law, and it doesn't have to be adhered to either. > > Okay but if you wanted something for the law being broken (i.e; your copyright being infringed), you have to go in front of a court of law. > > > Secondly, let's actually look at what the court ruled here, on the implied license front: > > > > > consent to use the copyrighted work need not be manifested verbally and may be inferred based on > > > > > > silence where the copyright holder knows of the use and encourages it. > > > > Notice the "where the copyright holder knows of the use and encourages it." > > > > That's not necessarily the case in this discussion. It was the case in that court case. > > > > That court case literally doesn't apply here. Especially since Field explicitly added code > > > > so that search engines would index the URL of the page. This is not the case in this discussion > > > > as the > > > > absence of robots.txt would not be explicitly allowing search engines to index the URL of the > > > > page, and each > > > > server that doesn't have a robots.txt would not "know of the use and encourage it". > > I don't know where you got the idea that Field added code to make the engine index the URL-- that's what a search engine does-- but I don't care at this point. > > > Finally, precedents can be challenged by the Supreme Court. For example, the current Supreme Court > > > > case of Google v. Oracle dismissed everything the district courts and the Circuits had to say, > > > > because the Supreme Court looks at things freshly. > > Google v Oracle is an ongoing case. No precedent was set, because the case never actually came to rest. See the EFF's page on it: > > https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google > > Just my two cents, > > Robert "khuxkm" Miles
---
Previous in thread (61 of 70): 🗣️ Robert "khuxkm" Miles (khuxkm (a) tilde.team)
Next in thread (63 of 70): 🗣️ Krixano (krixano (a) protonmail.com)