|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:24 AM EDT |
This may be the "Off topic" thread, but the following
article is very much
on topic. Andrew Orlowski of the
Register writes, "Oracle v Google could clear way
for copyright on languages, APIs,
And here's why that
would be a VERY BAD THING."
While
source code is globally recognised as
copyrightable (in the United States since
1964), this is not
the case for languages and interfaces. The two relevant
international treaties are TRIPS (Trade-Related aspects of
Intellectual
Property Rights) and the Copyright Treaty of
the UN agency World Intellectual
Property Organization
(WIPO). In a High Court ruling in 2010 specialist IP
judge
Justice Richard Arnold affirmed that both agreements protect
source
code.
Judge Arnold said that software source code is an
“expression”
and that neither TRIPS nor the Copyright Treaty
protects “ideas, procedures,
methods of operation and
mathematical concepts as such” – which either belong
to the
domain of patents or are not protected at all.
The judge's view
was – to some extent – affirmed by
Advocate General Yves Bot (yes, that's
really his name) at
the European Court of Justice late last year. Bot said that
the "functionalities" of a program, and the programming
language, cannot be
protected by copyright. He added that
the source code of a program "may be
reproduced in order to
ensure interoperability with another program", but only
if
"certain conditions are met".
So what I don't get is,
why do we have a group of 12
technologically illiterate people deciding such a
monumental
thing as to whether computer languages, or at least, the API
specification for them, should be copyrightable? This just
doesn't make any
sense to me. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:54 AM EDT |
Shane McGlaun over at Slashgear says, Euro carriers knock Nokia:
Lumia “not good
enough”
The four major telecom operators in Europe
remain unmoved by recent smartphones Nokia has offered.
Those four major
European carriers are saying that Nokia’s
new Lumia line of smartphones are
just not good enough to
compete against rivals in the market such as the iPhone
or
Android devices.
European carriers say that the Lumia smartphones
are
overpriced and are not innovative.
Another big issue that the
carriers cite are glitches in the
battery and software for early models that
make Nokia look
bad. The crux of the issue for Microsoft and Nokia is that
people are not coming into stores asking for Windows Phone
devices. Many feel
that Nokia should have thrown its money
behind Android rather than stacking all
of its eggs inside
the Windows Phone basket.
An unnamed European
mobile phone executive said, “No one
comes into the store and asks for a
Windows phone." "If the
Lumia with the same hardware came with Android in it
and not
Windows, it would be much easier to sell.” [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
| Dilbert ;-) ---
The following program
contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is advised. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MadTom1999 on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:44 AM EDT |
| will that kill development stone dead? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
Karen Gullo and Pamela MacLean at Bloomberg News have the
scoop...
Google outlined
a defense today in federal
court in San Francisco against Oracle’s allegations
of
copyright and patent infringement.
"Google didn’t need a license to
use the Java language in
Android," Robert Van Nest, an attorney for Google,
said
today in federal court in San Francisco on the second day of
an
eight-week trial. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- FUD - Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
Brandon Bailey at Mercury News has much more info on Google's
defense
today
Oracle (ORCL) wanted to build its own
smartphone
before it challenged Google's (GOOG) use of the
Java programming system in
building the popular Android
mobile software, a Google attorney told jurors in
federal
court Tuesday.
Google didn't need a license from Oracle or
from Sun
Microsystems, which created Java before it was acquired by
Oracle in
2010, according to Van Nest, because Google only
used the programming language
and other elements of the Java
system that were freely available in the public
domain.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
| Link So Nokia might be well on the way to recovery if they had
done the sensible thing. The shareholders should act to get rid of Flop
immediately. I like this bit: “No one comes into the store and asks
for a Windows phone,” said an executive in charge of mobile devices for one
European operator. “If the Lumia with the same hardware came with Android in it
and not Windows, it would be much easier to sell,” he added. It
seems that the buying public are learning....[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
Whole countries now.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/17/11248387-microsoft-africa-chairm
an-named-interim-leader-of-mali[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
| Wired <
a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fcc-metes-out-light-penalty
-for-google-in-street-view-case/2012/04/16/gIQAEryRMT_story.html">washington
Post I have just spotted these in a circular from SANS which I receive
regularly. If I was using unencrypted public WiFi, I would be far more worried
about Joe Cracker than Google! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
