Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
Google can clearly argue that the SSO of the libraries are a functional
requirement for any alternative libraries since the alternative libraries won't
function if the SSO is changed.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
I thought the problem was the lack of case law on copyrighting API's. That is
why this case is so important.
It sure isn't the money any more. If people are just giving this stuff away, it
is hard to make the case that it is either hard or worth what Oracle is saying
it is. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
> Judges have already decided that API's are not eligible for
> copyright protection...
All APIs in general? Or the header file type APIs in non-OO languages?
As posters elsewhere here have noted the dependency tree of
classes and methods in Java means Oracle's attempt to say some
APIs are "free" and others not, is already unravelling.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|