|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
The problem is that the "good" judge will not rule that the API's are
not copyrightable. If he thought that they are not, he would have ruled so
looooong time ago (or at least around the time he ruled that names of methods in
the API are not copyrightable).
The core of the issue is that Java API's are compiled and stored in .class files
- just like implementation source code is. Thus, to rule that the API's are not
copyrightable would mean to rule that source code is not either - which would be
against Supreme Court precedent. This is the exact reason why Question 1A on
the verdict form recites the API SSO of "compilable" code.
Google will lose on the issue of API copyrightability - either before the
"good" judge or before the appeals court.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|