|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
Seconded. A beam of light in the murky world of US 'copyright' litigation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 06:13 AM EDT |
I haven't read the text. yet, but the worthy judge has done everything I could
have hoped.
He points out that it cannot be said that all APIs are free and open or that, by
inference, ABIs are, either.
What he has done is go to great lengths to say what it is about this particular
API that makes it unprotectable by showing that copyright protection of
functionality, names and short phrases and command structure are excluded by the
law if they are essential for interoperability. From what little I know, that is
blanket coverage for all APIs and ABIs.
He has provided an interoperability argument that goes way beyond APIs and ABIs.
He is saying that interoperability between executable program code is king, no
matter what the circumstances. So, a BIOS is included and so is firmware in a
router or a printer.
All we need to guard against is any new language that labels its API functions
with the names of Harry Potter characters and locations and matches its logic to
the story lines.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|