|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
A good point. The "sequence" of some methods in a class, or classes
in a package, doesn't matter at all. It has no creativity in it, and should not
be copyrightable. If you re-arrange the order and show both orders to a
programmer, of course he will say the API is the same. The computer doesn't
care about that order, and neither does the programmer. Each method or class is
a constituent part of the complete API, but there is no meaningful
"ordering" of those parts.
That leaves just "structure" and "organization", a pair of
words which, together, describe the particular arrangement of methods in
classes, and classes in packages, and packages in other packages. But some of
that stuff is entirely functional, and could only be done in one particular way.
And for the rest of it, it was a matter of "style" or "good API
design" in the Java standard library. But for Apache Harmony or any other
implementor besides the first, they have to make 100% of the same choices that
the first implementor made. There is one and only one "structure" and
"organization" which is compatible with Sun's.
So "SSO" would normally be thought of as some nebulous combination of
three aspects of the work. But with programming language APIs, two of them are
100% dictated by functional or compatibility requirements, and the third doesn't
really exist at all (or to the extent that it does, it is 100% dictated by
functional requirements).
Maybe we need new legislation affirming that SSO copyright does not apply to
computer programs, and that copying structural choices where interoperability
dictates the choice, is not infringement.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT |
That line of thinking could be worked and elaborated as an
illustrative
device at the appeal stage or in a motion - the
point being to drive home the
irrelevancy of the 'O' in "SSO"
(order), and 'S' (sequence). All that would
remain to discuss
would be the "Structure". Suddenly we have something very
nebulous indeed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|