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
Names are unprotectable, and the names define the tree structure | 396 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Names are unprotectable, and the names define the tree structure
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT
Expand the tree for each of them and for each of the things you can find in them. There is your SSO Each page you can open is a "work as a whole" Then they copied all the names out into the source code, symbol for symbol. Making a copy of the SSO. Allegedly.

So the SSO is the tree structure of names? There has already been a ruling that the names and signatures are not protectable IIRC, so a tree structure of abstract data seems like a pretty thin claim. Is an abstract tree structure of unprotectable elements now a copyrightable item?

The jury shall be told: “The names of the various items appearing in the disputed API package specifications, such as names of API files, packages, classes, and methods, are not protected.” This instruction reflects the Court’s order on summary judgment (Dkt. No. 433).

It gets even less easy to protect when you consider that the unprotectable names are in fact the fully qualified names within the API.

From java.lang (for example - I won't use a claimed one for fear of being sued :) ), there is no such thing as "NullPointerException". There is java.lang.NullPointerException. This has been ruled as unprotectable, and this unprotectable name defines the SSO.

So a tree structure comprised of unprotectable elements, and given a structure from the names of those unprotectable elements suddenly becomes a protectable item?

I am no lawyer, but I find that a bit confusing

[ 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 )