|
|
|
| Authored by: calris74 on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:09 AM EDT |
Like I said, at most Google copied one room of the entire
housing project[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 02:36 AM EDT |
Well,
"North-facing
Bedroom [double] [bathroom ensuite]
Bedrooms, 2 [single]
Bathroom
Open Plan Living Area
Kitchen [Porch off]"
Is an expression of an idea. If it was sufficiently original it could be
copyrighted. It's sort of a level of detail question, how general can a
description of an idea be before it becomes un-copyrightable. It seems like
copyright law in general is pretty lenient towards copyright ownership, as long
as the expression is original, the question of its value doesn't affect whether
it
can be copyrighted. I'm pretty sure one could publish a collection of gibberish
and claim copyright on it.
It's weird to me how the judge only now seems to be getting a basic
understanding of what an API is. I understand the jury not, but does the judge
actually wait until the trial to learn about the issues?
I'm having a hard time getting my mind around how it seems like everyone at
the trial is having a hard time getting their mind around what an API is.
Leaving aside specific issues of copying in the API implementation, is Oracle
claiming that the actual names of the Java classes, for example something
like:
javax.sound.sampled.spi
Is copyrightable? That really seems disingenuous given that they are still
saying that the Java language is free to use. Nobody could build any real
applications without using the class names. If they had never made the moves
towards open sourcing Java, then I could see an argument made for it. It's a
short expression, so maybe it would be a borderline case.
The SSO argument seems stronger, and my understanding is that it's an open
question for the judge still.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
