decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
IMHO Neither | 238 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
IMHO Neither
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
There will still be the opportunity to register an API as a single document or a
collection (both are permitted under the copyright law). That door has closed,
for all practical purposes, for Oracle.

If they register the Java API as a collection, they kill all public work of any
kind on the Java platform (if they have not already done so). Geeks won't ask
the lawyers what they can and can't do under the licence. They will just forget
Java ever existed.

For other APIs some idiot can sue either way and the issue becomes the
percentage of the whole work that was copied.

A future case will have to go over the law, yet again, that holds that an API is
not copyrightable because of merger of expression with function and all the
other issues already in case law.

I think that anyone from this day forth who wants to get a new API accepted by
the community will have to have a very well-written, free, open and permissive
licence to offer with the API.

Out of this case we get the important freedom from a judgement that the judge
has already made: you cannot copyright the ideas expressed in a document, even
if it is an API Specification document.

I'm waiting to see whether he starts to question whether one can copyright a
large number of ideas in a collection of documents. It's a bizarre situation,
but he is just about to ask the jury to decide just that.

The SSO is not in the individual copyright documents: it is a specific
collection of ideas. Are the ideas from 37 packages protectable by copyright.
How about 160+. Where is that in copyright law?

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )