IIRC, what is protected for compilations (aside from any copyright that may
adhere in any given work included in the compilation - that copyright belongs to
the creator of that work, and not the creator of the compilation) is the
selection and arrangement (and possibly coordination in the U.S.) of the
included works.
This is different from the structure, sequence, and
organisation of computer programmes, which is also protected. I'm not sure if
the protection of SSO applies to works that are not computer programmes in the
U.S..
It's important to keep these concepts separate as they really are
different things, although conceptually similar as they are kinds of what are
called "non-literal elements" which are protected by copyright.
There
seems to have been quite a bit of confusion about what is protected in each case
here over the past few days.
There also seems to have been an assumption
by the court and some of the lawyers that the API was somehow a computer
programme and protectable that way, thus all the talk of SSO.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|