|
Authored by: wharris on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 06:41 AM EDT |
Ah, that makes sense -- thank you!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
Yes, you are correct.
We tend to think of APIs and how they relate to header files, but they are not
the same thing. Many languages do have a concept of a header file just for the
purpose of documenting and sharing the definition of the API, but its still an
API even if you don't have the header file available. Many times header files
are converted or reverse engineered or in cases like Visual Basic there are no
header files at all. Sometimes its just available as part of a specification
document somewhere.
I suppose it could be argued that comments in an actual header file could be
considered as protectable since they are non-functional, but I don't believe
that is what Oracle's point is. They are still harping on the structure and
sequence of the API definitions, which of course are purely functional.
As others have mentioned, it would be shocking if the courts actually ruled that
the APIs are protectable as this could be used to prevent any and all
interoperability.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|