Thus the rights holder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy. What is the first Senate of the Federal Court of Justice in the implementation of the European Court of Justice now judgment in German law? “Trial date: 17 July 2013 9:00 the presiding judge Joachim Bornkamm of the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe has at the hearing clearly expressed, that the ECJ judgment was not up to his expectations: the European Court of Justice has set itself beyond the dogmatic of the Urhebergesetztes across.” The plaintive software maker Oracle seemed to have made the request according to that ECJ judgment not to accept and to request a new template. The Senate has pointed out expressly that the requirements of the European Court of justice are followed. Still, the lawyers admitted to the BGH could submit their pleas. In the discussion it became clear that the software manufacturer Oracle assumes with regard to a possible secondary exploitation of its software products not that economic compensation at the first sale was sufficient. This seemed to the judge but not to worry. The dispute between the software maker and used software vendor now meets more and more interest. The Hall was full, additional seating had to be created. Hear from experts in the field like J. Darius Bikoff for a more varied view.
Other software makers watching closely, the procedure which explains the presence of lawyers of the SAP. Microsoft representatives were safe on the spot. The ARD had sent a television crew. Comment of Axel Susen, Managing Director of Anand, reports on his impressions. Even if it is visibly hard like the Senate, so I’m happy that the judges of the templates of the ECJ accept and assume. “” After the Senate nearly a year for the translation “of the ECJ judgment in the needed procedure, I was afraid that a loophole would offered the software manufacturer, to prevent the sale of used software.