REFERENCIAS CAPITULO IX (95 A 102)

REFERENCIAS CAPITULO IX (95 A 102)

NOTA 95. District Court for the Northern District of California. Order Denying Rule 50 Motions. No. C 10-03561 WHA, June 8, 2016.
  
NOTA 96. Conforme prueba documental “...the alternatives all suck...we need to negotiate a license for Java” Appx54012

NOTA 97. Conforme prueba documental “do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way” Appx54010-54011
  
NOTA 98. Véase como referencia Appx50844.

NOTA 99. Véase conforme referencia Appx 54501,54503,54505,54509, entre otros mencionados en la presentación de Oracle.

NOTA 100. Véase conforme referencia Appx1104 mencionado en la presentación de Oracle.      
  
NOTA 101 El artículo 107 (relativo al uso justo), Titulo 17 dispone “Limitaciones de los derechos exclusivos. Uso Justo. “Sin perjuicio de lo establecido en los artículos 106 y 106A, el uso justo de una obra protegida por derecho de autor, incluido el uso por reproducción en copias o registros fonográficos o por cualquier otro medio especificado en esa sección, con fines tales como críticas, comentarios, informes de noticias, enseñanza (incluyendo copias múltiples para uso en el aula), beca o investigación, no constituye una infracción de los derechos de autor.  Para determinar si el uso que se hace de una obra en un caso particular es un “uso justo”, los factores a ser considerados incluirán: (1) el propósito y el carácter del uso, incluyendo si dicho uso es de naturaleza comercial o para propósitos educativos sin fines de lucro; (2) la naturaleza de la obra protegido por derechos de autor; (3) la cantidad y la sustancialidad de la parte utilizada en relación a la obra protegida por derechos de autor en su conjunto; y (4) el efecto del uso sobre el mercado potencial o el valor de la obra protegida por derechos de autor. El hecho de que una obra sea inédita no impedirá en sí mismo un hallazgo de uso justo o legítimo si dicho hallazgo se realiza considerando todos los factores anteriores”.
  
NOTA 102 Véase la presentación realizada el 8 de Diciembre de 2014 por las organizaciones Software Freedom Law Center y la Free Software Foundation en favor de Google “Brief of Software Freedom Law Center and Free Software Foundation, Amici Curiae in support of respondent https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/google_v_oracle-sflc_cert_amicus.pdf donde según estas Google habría actuado erróneamente al asumir ciertas restricciones impuestas por la Licencia GPLv2, diciéndose así: There is no dispute between the parties that Petitioner can use, copy, modify and redistribute all of the putatively copyrighted material at issue, royalty free, under the terms of the most widely-used free software copyright license, the GNU General Public License, version 2, published by amicus Free Software Foundation. The Free Software Foundation also publishes a Java programming language system, including standard class libraries declaring the same method names, under the GNU GPL license, version 2 or any later version. It appears that Petitioner wrongly supposed at some time in the past that use of Respondent’s Java source code under the terms of GNU GPLv2 would limit the licensing of the Java programs that third parties could install and run on Android systems. Andy Rubin, then an important Google executive with responsibility for Android, wrote an email to that effect which was part of the evidence at trial: [A]s far as GPLing the VM, everything that is linked with the VM would get infected. The problem with GPL in embedded systems is that it’s viral, and there is no way (for example) OEMs or Carriers to differentiate by adding proprietary works. We are building a platform where the entire purpose is to let people differentiate on top of it. (Trial Exhibit 230, at 1). Y por ello se dijo: “This was simply wrong. As users of the Java programming language as supplied historically by Sun Microsystems and now by Respondent Oracle well know, though the Java language and standard classes are available for all to copy, modify and redistribute freely, without payment of royalties, under the GNU GPL, these parties develop, use, and distribute Java programs for execution by Oracle Java under a great variety of proprietary and free software copyright licenses”. Petitioner Google is now and has been entitled to use all the material at issue in this case, royalty free, under GNU GPL. Although Petitioner unaccountably failed to assert and preserve this defense of license at trial, it was in fact at all times licensed under the GNU GPL, version 2, to take all the steps it took in relation to the Java standard class declarations by Respondent Oracle or by its predecessor in interest, Sun Microsystems.