A "musical phrase" is probably copyrightable, it really depends if
you mean the notation itself, or... a phrase. (The nine lines = the nine notes?
But I digress...)
To play devil's advocate, Oracle's argument might be
that they have created their own notation, and that it is unique and create and
allows more efficient understanding and represent music in a more beautiful way
etc etc ad nauseum.
To continue the analogy, after this glorious
creation (that despite everything is obviously based on the old, standard
notation that everybody uses), they have allowed composers to use this notation
for years. During this time they have been making money from their tools that
make it easy to write music this way.
My understanding of Dalvik isn't
great enough to continue this analogy perfectly but I guess that the idea would
be that they've extended this notation somewhat and improved it for a different
kind of music (even current notation doesn't convey swing very well).
Fragmentation blah blah blah
Would any of this be protectable? I hope
not. The Music Notation Project is
certainly interesting in terms of this analogy:
Exploring
alternative music notation systems — to make reading, writing, and playing music
more enjoyable and easier to learn.
In conclusion, Oracle's
case is a threat to musicians everywhere. Also, sorry if this post is a bit
incoherent; I have to drink every time I see a new API analogy, or someone
tweets about a lawyer huddle. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|