decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
A better API analogy - everyday hardware interfaces | 237 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A better API analogy - everyday hardware interfaces
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 03:55 AM EDT
Sure, that's what I said: the one protection mechanism that is not totally
contrary to what an API is supposed to be is patents. Oracle has lost its
marbles on the patent front and now is dragging copyrights into the ring.

And those don't fit. You can try making a side pot from them and make a bit of
small cash. Instead Oracle tries selling them off as the "real deal"
of the acquisition.

What corporations don't get is that the real deal here was not in the form of
patents. Or in the form of copyright.

It was in the form of a thriving development department, employees organized to
do their job well and be creative.

The fundamental purpose of a car is to go places, not to be an inventory of car
parts.

If you treat them as the latter, the cars will lose value faster than you can
look since they won't be useful for their purpose anymore.

And it is not the job of courts and patent and copyright laws to substitute for
business ineptitude. If you sell the brakes of your car and drive it against a
tree, then sue the tree owner for the loss of value due to the damaged grill
which was "really" the only thing you wanted the car for...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )