|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
I'm not even sure that would work...
Thinking about it a bit more, the compilable code reference needs to stay
because it refers to Google's code, which is what is accused of infringing. The
question now seems to me to be "does Google's implementation (37 Java
packages - not APIs) copy the SSO of the Java APIs?" The APIs are, for the
purposes of the question, presumed to be copyrightable works, even though in
fact they are neither (we're talking about non-literal elements of something
that's not literal at all - not fixed, etc.). Maybe the judge did ask the
question intended, it only doesn't make sense because there are no
"works" to be copyrighted - the only works that Oracle has to compare
to Google's code are specs and implementations, not APIs. So perhaps you were
right the first time, although that leaves us with no copyrighted works to
compare to Google's compilable code.
You are absolutely right that Oracle has been trying to create confusion about
the nature of APIs, and the relationship between an API, its documentation, and
its implementation. They did admit to the judge, at least, that they were
seeking protection for something that has never been protected before. The jury
probably should have been told, but I can understand why they wouldn't be (it
would have been (even more) confusing. Oracle pushing the "sweat of the
brow" theory of copyright will go nowhere - that's already been rejected in
the US (although it still exists elsewhere).
I think we're getting closer...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|