New answers tagged

2

This is most likely a disclosure of a Trade secret which, even in the USA, does not have the same level of legal protection in every state. Until the moment of disclosure, Gadget Corp considered the code commercially valuable because no-one else had access to it, and they also very likely took reasonable efforts to keep the code secret. These reasonable ...


10

Other answers deal well with your principal question, but the secondary deserves a little attention, though it's easier to deal with. And indeed, it seems like there's a possibility of abuse, here - "accidentally" post code where a competitor might find it, then pull it from them, costing days of work or more In practice, this comes down to the ...


7

What you are referring to is called Contributory Infringement. Yes, Widget Tech (and possibly Josh himself) are liable for their use of the proprietary code. The case you are describing (exciting narrative BTW), is indeed rather complicated and would definitely pay out for the lawyers involved. The most probable outcome of such a scenario would be the ...


16

You are right in your assessment: Widget Tech has a problem as it will need to replace the illegally-used library with something else. It may not be eligible for damages if you cease to do so immediately as it was acting in good faith. But they have no recourse to demand a license or release of the code or continued use of it. Neither company has done ...


3

First off, to compare the Oracle v Google case with your example, the Oracle code would be similar to library B and the Google code would be comparable to library C. The equivalent of library A would be a normal Java library written by a third party (i.e. not part of the JDK or Android). The decision by the US Supreme Court has very little to no impact on ...


2

One can hardly copyright the idea of an application which allows to write documents or which allows to do calculations on and in a table or to create and display presentations. Other than that, Microsoft's products have nothing in common, least of all any code which a copyright claim would have to be based on, with the competing products which are not ...


6

Under current legal precedent in the United States, LibreOffice et al. did not commit copyright infringement. Look to Lotus v. Borland for the U.S. precedent allowing duplication of interfaces. The code used to create each computer program is copyrightable and may not be duplicated without permission, but the functional components of the rendered interface ...


Top 50 recent answers are included