|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
I'm not sure I understood what happened... I really respect this judge, he seems
careful and patient, and unwilling to make a call about something he doesn't
fully understand.
"The APIs are copyrightable, but not on their own" can you explain how
you
arrived at this? Could you also guess at what would have to be added to an API
additionally to make it copyrightable?
thanks[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
I think the judge is instructing to jury to assume that the APIs are
copyrightable,
and decide if it's fair use from there. If they decide it is fair use, then
Google is
completely in the clear, and if they decide it isn't fair use, then he'll decide
whether or not they're copyrightable in the first place.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 04:23 AM EDT |
There's an issue that you haven't helped me much on. Judge versus
jury on "work as a whole". I am not convinced that this is for the judge to
decide. One way to go is to say Oracle copyrighted 5.0, and it wants to
establish a smaller... it's a matter of proof for the jury.
We
must stop Judge Alsup telling us stuff using this legal messaging speak. First
it's teenagers and now it's judges. LOL
My attempt at a translation is
'Oracle registered the entire Java SE V5 platform as a distribution just like
RedHat does with Linux. Oracle want to take a compilation chunk out of that
registered work-as-a-whole compilation and say that the registration gives them
copyright rights to that chunk'.Judge: Mr. Jacobs, please respond: I
get the impression that you went through and found the 37 that they did copy,
and you're trying to convert that to some holy grail of holy grail of copyright.
I don't see that yet. The proof doesn't show that. Why would you want to
instruct the jury that the work as a whole is the 37?
Oracle: SSO is
*not* a separate thing. That's absolutely correct. The 37 packages. The way
these cases line up...
Judge: "Nobody raised it in that case". What
case law is relevant?
rdng btwn lns IANAL LOL I think the judge is
only saying that it might be that this is a matter for the jury. Oracle will
have to work hard with relevant case law.Judge: But then the
percentage that is copied is always 100%.
Oracle: Well, yeah, Gerald
Ford's memoirs. It was ruled to be substantial. Those 37 APIs are akin to 37
journal articles.
Judge: The statute calls out percentage, 107 says,
one of the factors that must be considered, the amount and substantiality of the
portion used and the relation to the work as a whole.
Oracle: In the
case of dead literal copying, that provision does not get very much weight.
Taking 5 notes out of a song...
Judge: That was 1927, this is a
statute from 1986.
Oracle: But we have lots of recent case law. We'll
do more briefing.
Judge : We ignore the addons that Google put in, but
the part they copied is to the work as a whole, and I question if the work as a
whole is just what is copied.
Oracle: We'll do our best.
Judge: You need to be give me a decision on point, is this for the judge, or is
this for the jury?
That sounds like Oracle are uncertain they can
back their assertion about copyright and that the judge demands a cast iron
legal argument.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Work as a whole - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 08:41 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
I may be posting this in the wrong place, but all the talk
about the SSO of an API (that's for all intent and purpose
required), sounds an awful lot like the "look and feel" of the
API/language.
That was decided some time ago, I believe. And if not, then MS
and Apple and a whole bunch of others are going to be in deep
doo-doo regarding GUIs (windowing systems like MS-Windows and
Mac OS), and Xerox (PARC) is going to be busy raking in the
royalties.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davecb on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
The Samba team has addressed a similar problem, the accusation that they are
doing "reverse engineering" on APIs. That opens them up to legal
attacks which they would have to defend, rather like the Oracle attack on APIs
here.
Tridge describes "questioning the french " waiter in
https://www.samba.org/ftp/tridge/misc/french_cafe.txt
and Jeremy discusses the context in
https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/myths_about_samba.html
To use their similie, this case is about it supposedly being illegal to order in
French, because both the original and translated menus are copyrighted (;-))
--dave
---
davecb@spamcop.net[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
