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
What the jury actually decided... | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What the jury actually decided...
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 | # ]

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 )