|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 02:07 AM EDT |
jvillain said:
Buck up, it wasn't that bad. The best and possibly
only way for the judge to put the question of fair use before the jury
[...]
I thought I had explained that in my penultimate paragraph.
That's why I concluded with: "[m]aybe this was a pretty good day for Google
after all." It is also why I used "at first blush" in my opening
sentence.
[...] with out prejudicing it is to tell them the API is
copyrightable.
I don't follow you here. If the jury is asked to
decide if the facts say Google violated Oracle's API copyrights then they have
to assume that APIs are copyrightable. I can't believe Judge Alsup would try to
trick the jury into believing they are supposed to decide matters of
law.
In the mean time he has basically told Oracle that their
claim to control over the API is [nonsense].
Here we seem to
disagree. I described your quote from the judge as:
... giving
Google a win on the implementation not being derived from the API
...
Perhaps you are using the term "API" differently from how I
use it. Oracle claims that Google violated their copyright by copying APIs.
Google admits to copying but says it is not a copyright violation. In addition,
Oracle is claiming that the code Google wrote to implement the APIs also
violates the copyright of the APIs. It was only Oracle's extension to the
implementation that the judge shot down in the passage you cited. IMO he has
actually provisionally said that Oracle does have copyright control over the
APIs per se. I think we agree that this might end up being a good thing for
Google if they can convince the jury that even if APIs can be copyrighted they
still did nothing wrong.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there
are more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is
reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
