|
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
Thank you
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- WHO calls Middle Eastern virus, MERS, ‘threat to the entire world’ as death toll rises - Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 03:29 AM EDT
- "Microsoft applies for patent on TV achievements" - Authored by: Ronny on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:24 AM EDT
- Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware: it's ransomware - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 06:22 AM EDT
- WHO calls Middle Eastern virus, MERS, ‘threat to the entire world’ as death toll rises - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 07:10 AM EDT
- Microsoft applies for TV patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 01:48 PM EDT
- Recent Scholarship: Investing in America's Future - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- Tim Cook: Apple will open iOS up more for third party developers - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Apple style open - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 01:37 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
Thank you for the work. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 03:31 AM EDT |
If Oracle spent same time, effort and resources to make JAVA better, it would
have had much bigger benefit for public and oracle itself than with this stupid
lawsuit..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:18 AM EDT |
It is interesting to see in the Samuelson paper the Microsoft
is actually trying to circumvent 102(2) by using patents on
XML schemas (footnote 365).
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:04 AM EDT |
... that "Harry Potter" serves no creative function either.
</humour>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:42 AM EDT |
...Google, like Connectix, implemented some but not
all
of the functions
from the plaintiff’s software system,
choosing only those functions necessary
to accomplish its
purpose.
For those functions, Google, like Connectix,
ensured that
it
duplicated the same “entry points” and each function’s
functionality, including the information sent to and from
the system. Many of
the Sony functions, like many of the
J2SE functions, performed standard
functions familiar to any
programmer. Google, like Connectix, wrote its own
implementing code. Indeed, the key distinction between the
present case and
Sony, is that Connectix created
intermediate copies of Sony’s implementing
code, for which
it had to rely on fair use. Google did not copy Oracle’s
implementing code, and thus section 102(b) itself precludes
copyright
infringement liability...
I am sure Oracle lawyers know this but it's
their work to
try to obtain a favorable ruling for their client at
whatever
cost. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
Please note footnote 365: Microsoft trying to circumvent
copyright law by applying for patent(s) on XML Schemas.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
Since when do we just believe reporters? No questions asked?
Response from
the Erasmus University (http://ww
w.erasmusmc.nl/perskamer/archief/2013/4164294/?lang=en)
It
should be clear that a virus cannot be patented, only specific applications
related to it, like vaccines and medicines. Rumours that the Viroscience
department of Erasmus MC would hamper research into the MERS coronavirus are
clearly wrong and not based on facts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
So Google claims "The Java Application Programming Interface
("API") is not a work of imaginative fiction"
Well.
I think there are style choices in the interface which are not obvious, that
take a while to appreciate, that escape a shallow inspection.
The API has an aesthetic. This aesthetic becomes noticeable when one switches
between different libraries.
As a small example, I could imagine if the API had been designed for, let's say
teenagers or children, it would have used different names, a different style.
So Google may claim there is no imagination here, but I doubt they can make a
good argument. The API is not only functional. In general, programming is about
which changes are easy to make. So the designers of the API made such choices,
and these choices are expressions of a particular view of the world, the world
of the programmers using the API, in the eyes of the designers.
Fun, isn't it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No. Imaginitive fiction has a narrative - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Substaintainly A Work of fiction or not? - Authored by: 351-4V on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 03:12 PM EDT
- Sorry, the plot fails - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Work of fiction or not? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- Imaginative is immaterial to this argument - Authored by: JonCB on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- The copyright protects the creative aesthetic expression fixed in a medium - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 02:44 AM EDT
- Work of fiction or not? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Work of fiction or not? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 11:58 PM EDT
- Story of sin - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:27 PM EDT
|
|
|
|