decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Not "Just a list of names" | 178 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Not "Just a list of names"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT
You are not wrong, however that is not what I said.

Java, Interfaces are *ONLY* a list of names.
There is no way to separate the expression from their idea.

Sure you can come up with a different idea of what an interface would/could/
should be, but then it would not be the same interface,it would be a different

interface.

This refers to the OPs mention of aspects of the API which have yet to be
discussed, including Interfaces.

I think (I haven't actually looked), all of the things you are mentioned are
actually concrete Classes and not Interfaces.

The methods you mention do not return new Interfaces, they return Objects of
the Class ListIterator

Chances are that the List Class implements the Iterator Interface,

This is another area where Oracle can mix and misuse terms to construe
something that is false on the face of it . Likewise a Java Interface is
classified
as an Abstract Type, no doubt this is a different meaning of Abstract to the
legal one. And indeed while a Method may return an Object of a Class type
which may Implement an Interface, such as (e.g.) a ListIterator, it could also
be said that the ListIterator is an interface to the associated List.

Check Wikipedia on Java Interfaces, for more info, it's not complete garbage.

a Java Class may Extend only one Class and may Implement one or more
Interfaces

An Interface does not have any Methods, it only has Method Declarations
(names).

When a Class Implements an interface, it *MUST* Implement *ALL* of the
Methods Declared, which indicates that it is not just the names
individually(Selection) that make the interface, but the whole set
(Organisation) of names that define the Interface.

This is why I assert (IANAL), that copyright for Java Interfaces (specifically

the Java Interface Abstract Type) is barred by the doctrine of merger, you
cannot separate the idea of the Interface from it's expression.
If you use a different expression it is, ipso facto, a different interface.

I hope this clears away some of the smoke.



[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )