|
Authored by: jvillain on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT |
I thought I read some where that the courts have ruled that a programming
language can't be copyrighted for your reason but also because giving one
company control over a programming language would give them an unfair advantage
harming competition. If that is the case and you can't do any thing with the
Java language with out using the API then by extension giving any one company
control of the API would also give one company to much control.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
The no-fixed-form objection to Oracle's claim is certainly
an ingredient. I wait to see how Judge Alsup will employ
it.
The objection is a bit easier to apply to the Java
programming language itself, alongside the themes of
unprotectable names (e.g. keywords) and of merger of
expression and method of operation.
The APIs are more extensive, but if it were me (and IANAL
much less a judge), I would start from the premise that the
APIs are the functional way in which the Java programming
language changes (extensions and deprecations). So I'd
agree with you that no-fixed-form is the central issue.
But it needs to be gussied up with the unprotectability of
names (which fully represent the structure and organization
of the APIs) and the merger doctrine.
One other tack the Judge is onto is that many APIs were
contributed in whole or in part by third parties.
---
Do the arithmetic or be doomed to talk nonsense. -- John McCarthy (1927-2011)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|