Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

So, how useful is a cleanroom? | 238 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

So, how useful is a cleanroom?

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 02:15 AM EDT

> There had already been a discussion that said clean rooms
> were only useful if you already had a license for the API.

And that loud buzzing noise is the jury asking themselves,
if you had an API license why would you bother with a
cleanroom?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So, how useful is a cleanroom? - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 03:18 AM EDT
- So, how useful is a cleanroom? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 10:47 AM EDT
- So, how useful is a API License? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:11 PM EDT

Provenance of API license concept

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 04:34 AM EDT

There had already been a discussion that said clean rooms were only useful if you already had a license for the API

Has there been any confirmation that Sun actually believed such a thing to exist?

The license Danger negotiated that had to be tailored to specifically remove rights to source code (they requested this as they has cleanroom implementation), was apparently about the Java trademark IIRC.

I'm pretty sure that an API license is a meaningless concept and only recently emerged in the fevered minds of the Oracle lawyers.

I wonder if it would be fruitful for them to be asked to produce documents for this "API license" (with full provenance), and details of which companies have signed it (as opposed to a trademark and/or source license)

I would guess that the list of companies using that license (if it even exists) would have precisely zero items on it. Especially since the concept is meaningless.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Week 2, Day 6 of Oracle v. Google ~pj - Updated

Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:00 AM EDT

>There had already been a discussion that said clean rooms
were only useful if you already had a license for the API.

But Phoenix did NOT have a license to the original IBM BIOS
API, but they not only reimplemented it in the clean room,
but then defended that action in court successfully.

I've never heard of a license for an API - only for the code
behind the API.

---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I agree with both of you - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )