No, just another massive distraction to stop you thinking
about
the SSO in the
specification that was copied to Googles website.
Do you think
this is one is the queen of hearts?
Does this idea of an "SSO"
have any historical precedent?
I've never heard of it before this case, and it
seems
clearly designed to dance around the facts that the
cleanroom
implementation doesn't infringe copyright (in any meaningful
way -
we'll see the worth of those 9 lines soon enough), and
the names and signatures
of the methods are non
copyrightable.
What's left when you ignore
them? Some mystical "SSO" which
doesn't really mean anything. A tree structure
surely can't
be copyrightable when the items contained within it aren't
protectable, and I'm pretty sure someone invented
alphabetical organisation
and tree structures before Oracle.
Assuming the SSO is a copyrightable
item, can we identify
the text that was "copied to Googles
website"?
Oracle clearly want money and recognition, and are throwing
anything they can at the wall to hope that something sticks.
I'm pretty sure
they don't believe any of this rubbish, but
feel generally wronged, and want to
rectify the "injustice"
of someone else managing to use the free parts of their
work
to make money in ways that they have categorically failed to
do
themselves.
I'm certain that Oracle wish that there were an API
license,
but the concept doesn't make sense.
I'm not sure what you
mean about the queen of hearts.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|