|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 02:13 AM EDT |
Lawyer: So Mr Webster. Your dictionary uses exactly the same words as found in
Oxford's book.
Webster: Not all of them. I think there are a few words in our dictionary that
are not in Oxford.
Lawyer: But they are mostly the same, is that correct?
Webster: Correct.
Lawyer: You were able to use different words?
Webster: We did add some ... so obviously yes.
Lawyer: You could have used more different words?
Webster: I suppose.
Lawyer: You copied the order of the words from Oxford as well. True?
Webster: We used alphabetical order.
Lawyer: Which you copied from Oxford.
Webster: It is the order people expect.
Lawyer: And the spellings are the same too.
Webster: Not true. We spelled some words differently.
Lawyer: Some words. But not most words.
Webster: That would be Correct.
Lawyer: You didn't have to spell the words the same way?
Webster: Well no. We made our own decisions on that.
Lawyer: Can you give us an example of one of these differently spelled words.
Webster: Well - color for a start. Oxford spells it - o - u - r .
Lawyer: So it is a one letter difference.
Webster: Yes.
Lawyer: And would the words be pronounced the same way.
Webster: Well ... maybe not in Texas ... but generally yes.
Lawyer: The spellings are very similar are they not.
Webster: Yes.
Lawyer: Would you agree that the differences in spelling are minor.
Webster: I suppose so.
Lawyer: So to sum up, you used mostly the same words as Oxford, spelled most of
them the same way with a few minor differences and listed them in the same
order. Is that not correct Mr Webster?
Webster: Yes
Lawyer: No further questions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
I agree, but I think Oracle's assertion is more tenuous.
They want to assert
that Google selected 37 packages of descriptions of library functions from the
complete distribution of tens of thousands of documents in JavaSE 5 and that
Oracle have legal protection in the SSO of those 37 packages of descriptions
because it can be considered as a work-as-a-whole.
Note that Google are not
accused of copying the descriptions or the code from this work-as-a-whole; just
the SSO. Oracle assert that it is the SSO that is 100% literally copied from the
work-as-a-whole.
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?
Oracle: Texaco American - copying from a journal, for internal distribution.
Texaco was copying particular articles, even though the entire journal was what
was copyrighted. The defendent defines the work based on what they choose to
copy.
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.
Stop making me quote this over-retching
twaddle!---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
