| |||||||||||||
Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?Posted Mar 21, 2011 6:08 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)In reply to: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line? by mjg59 Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
I don't want to comment on your view of US law, but I would like to stress that it's not just about that one jurisdiction. The question is whether Google is safe in the fastest as well as the most difficult jurisdiction that represents a significant market. I just recently researched and reported on the seizure of 300,000 PlayStations in Europe. That decision was achieved within a few days, and on a legal basis that doesn't have an equivalent concept in the US (the closest thing there would be an ITC proceeding, which takes 16-18 months however). It's an example of how someone who seeks to assert rights may just pick the most convenient place. The PlayStation seizure was based on the alleged infringement of intellectual property rights. (In this case, the seizure order was lifted -- lucky Sony.)
(Log in to post comments)
Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line? Posted Mar 21, 2011 18:39 UTC (Mon) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
And the decision was vacated a short time after they were seized and all the consoles impounded were promptly released back to the manufacturer for distribution in the EU. So now your FUD is that it's dangerous in Europe, where's the evidence? The EU case law? You are citing a paper prepared on the basis of US law and citing it against EU precedent. Now that's out there.
|
|||||||||||||