|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 07:44 AM EDT |
Oracle are claiming that the Harmony implementation code is Harmony's own, but
that the Interface contains valuable Oracle copyrightable stuff which has to be
copied into the Harmony work for it to be functional.
Because the API Specification is a compilation of packages, and the only
copyright protectable expression in a compilation copyright has to be in the
form of Sequence, Structure, Organization, that is the basis of their claim.
My view is [they must be kidding, right?], but with the additional proviso that
the 'compilation' has to be legally so to be protectable under the law. Although
all parts of the API Specification can be viewed on the website as a sort of
compilation, I am not sure that it is viewed as a legally copyright protectable
compilation by the courts. No legal compilation, no legal protection.
'Judge Alsup: I don’t know if at the end of testimony whether the Court will say
that the SSO (Sequence, Structure, Organization) is protectable. It might go to
the jury [ to make that decision ] Or, this decision could go up to the Court of
Appeals. I don’t know.'
PS Please explain more about the compiler vs. ld thing. I was trying to be
general. Does that point weaken my argument?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
