Claimant is not necessarily the author, as the case law
cited in the
weekend briefs points out: a case in which a
journal was copyrighted with a
single registration to
include the several articles contained
therein.
However the copyright of those articles had been
assigned
to the journal, hence the distinction of
claimant vs. author.
Still Google
seems to have a strong argument here, since
Oracle has not produced copyright
assignments for those
components contributed by other authors. Indeed the
failure
of Sun to be able to open source their own implementation of
Java 1.5
in its entirety, owing to the refusal of some
third-parties to agree to GPL
terms, seems to indicate a
well-known situation with regard to authorship of
many Core
API class libraries.
Note that the problem arises because of the
single Java
registration, and cannot be avoided just because the 37
accused
APIs might be owned by Oracle.
--- "Prolog is an efficient programming
language because it is a very stupid theorem prover." -- Richard O'Keefe [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|