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
I think the API court cases were based on that premise | 451 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Alsup Asks...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT
I agree with you, but I would suggest your wording is very sloppy, leaving you open to attacks from trolls.

Some programs may be ported to Android from other platforms. If the vocabulary is changed, these programs won't port without being rewritten.

There are two definitions for "porting" in my understanding. That can simply mean recompiling the source code as is on another platform, or it can mean modifying parts of the source code that are system dependent first before recompiling, necessary if there are system dependencies. There are no programs that can be ported to Android by simply recompiling the code. Whatever you try to port will need modifications to the source code to some extent. So then you say "If the vocabulary is changed, these programs won't port without being rewritten." but a troll will say, "The source code requires modification anyway. While you are at it, you could simply change the vocabulary."

Also, some programs are written to run on every platform, or at least as many platforms as possible. This is the "write once run anywhere" feature of Java. Does this count as functionality?

A troll will say, "Android doesn't have this functionality." and he will be correct. Android doesn't have this functionality at the program level."

Having a different vocabulary for Android will definitely break this because Android programs won't run elsewhere and Java programs won't run on Android.

A troll will say "Android programs and Java programs are not interchangeable - ie: one won't run on the other platform." again negating your comment.

In the end, with the sloppy wording you use, a troll will rip your comment to shreds. The problem is you should be using the word "modules" or "classes" or "methods" or "snippets" or anything but "programs".

You begin your comment by asking the question "Does compatibility count as functionality?" I say yes, but compatibility is not at the level of the program. It is at the level of code reuse. Programmers rarely start a project from scratch - at least - I never do. We always begin with bits and pieces of other programs we have written previously, and start with some framework we wrote for a similar program previously. We will take that framework, for example, and gut it, then start copy and pasting classes, methods, functions, headers, modules, whatever we have. Then from that raw material we will slowly work it into a new program, finally adding all new code, classes, modules, whatever we need.

We can take pieces of previously written Java programs and port them to Android, and yes, this level of compatibility counts as functionality.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think the API court cases were based on that premise
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT
It's the shared functionality that provides the compatibility between the two
programs linked by the API.

The courts have ruled that there is no legal right to prevent competitors
establishing the functionality to enable program compatibility.

That reveals an additional aspect of the argument. If the API specification is
made available as a matter of law, there is no restriction on the proportion of
API functions used by any one program. Also, the law does not seem to
distinguish which side of the API is independently implemented.

Thus Google can use any number of the packages that they want. However, the API
has to be made available first as a matter of law.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )