The Case of Melania Trump(Plagiarized article)

This caused a bit of a social media craze and will probably cause the Trump family some
embarrassment. One of the most well-known recent instances of plagiarism is a speech given by
Melania Trump.

“From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values

that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is
your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise,
that you treat people with respect”
(Melania Trump, 2016).(4:40)

And if we compare it to what Michelle Obama speech , She said that:

“Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that
you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your
bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat
people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them,
and even if you don’t agree with them”
(Michelle Obama, 2008).(5:23)

Reference
C-SPAN. (2008b, August 26). Michelle Obama Keynote Address at DNC. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=790hG6qBPx0

PBS NewsHour. (2016, July 19). Melania Trump’s full speech at the 2016 Republican National

Convention. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt_9yb4FSYA

Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Copyright case)

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oracle filed a lawsuit
claiming that Google's Android mobile operating system violated Oracle's copyrights and
patents.Although Google violated Oracle's copyright in 37 Java packages and a particular
computer routine called "rangeCheck," the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement for eight
decompiled security files. However, the jury did not find any patent infringement.Regarding
Google's fair use defense, the jury was deadlocked.The district court denied Google's and
Oracle's motions for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") regarding the rangeCheck files
following the verdict of the jury.JMOL was also accused by Oracle of violating the eight
decompiled security files.The court granted that motion because it determined that Google had
admitted to copying the eight files and that no reasonable jury could have determined that the
copying was minimal.The declaring ode and the structure, sequence, and organization were
among the replicated elements of the 37 API packages that the district court ruled were not
subject to copyright protection in its decision on copyrightability shortly after.As a result,
Oracle's copyright infringement claims were ultimately dismissed by the district court in favor of
Google, with the exception of the rangeCheck code and the eight decompiled files.Google
appeals from the portion of the final judgment entered in Oracle's favor regarding the
rangeCheck code and eight decompiled files, while Oracle appeals from the portion entered in
Oracle's favor.
When Google copied the declaring code and the overall structure, sequence, and organization
(SSO) of 37 packages that were a part of the platform to develop its own software, the Northern
District of California erred in finding that Google did not infringe copyrights Oracle held on a
computer programming platform. The court ruled that Northern District of California erred.The
declaring code as well as the API packages' structure, order, and sequence are entitled to
copyright protection, according to the Court.The Supreme Court has made it clear that neither the
Copyright Statute nor any other law says that something may not be copyrighted just because it
is patentable.