|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
According to http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf3/OraGoogle-914.pdf Google said:
The [API] packages as a whole, however, are not completely lacking in
originality. Thus, while reserving the right to present evidence that many
aspects of the APIs are unoriginal, Google does not dispute that the APIs as a
whole meet the “extremely low” threshold for originality required by the
Constitution. The jury therefore need not be asked to address whether the APIs
are original.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
Like us, Judge Alsup is struggling with the question of what
part of the Java APIs may be protected as to copyright, so
that the jury may ultimately consider whether Google's use
of a portion of those APIs as implemented by Harmony was in
some meaure infringing & liable for damages.
The threshold issue of whether, given the "originality" of
the Java APIs as a whole, they merit copyright protection is
a question of law, and thus as agreed by the parties, a
matter for Judge Alsup to decide.
Judge Alsup has already ruled that the names of classes,
methods, and files in the Java APIs are not protected. We
have yet to hear a clear articulation from Oracle of any
expressive, nonfunctional, not essential for
interoperability elements there are in these APIs which
Google infringed in developing Dalvik's ability to run Java
source code programs as cross-compiled.
Frankly given the late hour, I will be surprised to hear any
such articulation.
---
Do the arithmetic or be doomed to talk nonsense. -- John McCarthy (1927-2011)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|