|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
I didn't realize that it wasn't until 1990 that implementations of an
architectural blueprint were covered by the blueprint's copyright. From what
I can tell, that Architectural Works Protection Act was very specific to the
construction industry and does not apply to other types of design
specifications.
So based on this discussion, I see why this is in court and probably an
important case in intellectual property law. The API is unique and copyright-
able. However, it appears there is no law or precidence for classifying
specification implementations as derivative work in the software world.
However, Google's use of exact code copies in a few places, their use of
the name Java, and their internal correspondence make them look guilty of
something.
From a tech standpoint, I wonder if a ruling if Google's favor wouldn't be the
worst possible outcome. Would companies in the future be less willing to
participate in building open communities if the are unsure whether they can
protect thier IP? Sun invested tons of money into Java, shared it with the
world, and never figured out how to monetize it. Will that become a lesson
on what not to do for business executives? Or, contrarily, would it convince
companies to adopt fully open source licenses from the start?
It's really a shame at Google didn't buy Sun for the IP and the patents. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
