|
| Authored by: lwoggardner on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
| Hmmm, and I wonder where that comment about CipherInputStream came from... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PriceChilde on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
| Android in bold... to be fair, the sentence structure and shared words are
exceedingly similar.
A CipherInputStream is composed of an
InputStream and a Cipher
This class wraps an InputStream and a
cipher
so that read() methods return data that are read
so
that read() methods return data that are read
in
from
the underlying InputStream
from the underlying
InputStream
but have been
additionally
and
processed by the Cipher. The Cipher must
be
processed by the cipher. The cipher must
be
fully
initialized
initialized
for the requested operation
before being used by a
CipherInputStream.
before being used by a
CipherInputStream.
Yeah, I think its a punch of balloney too and I
think its perfectly acceptable that it may have been the only sensible way to
descibe the method without intentionally looking at Sun's and writing something
different to it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
| This example also makes very clear that there is no way you can
sensibly do a "cleanroom" recreation of an API description. It needs to obey
the same restraints, and verifying those restraints needs a side-by-side
comparison as they have to be functionally identical.
I remember copyright
violation cases for telephone directories where the contents of the directories
were typed off in China. The defendant lost his case because they did a
"cross-check" with machine-readable (and copyrighted) CD-ROMs, and as a
consequence of this "cross-check" reinserted bogus entries only in the
machine-readable copy.
For an API, there are no bogus entries. It needs to
have the same content, verifiably. The code implementing the API can
be created in a cleanroom setting, but the API is the information
required for establishing what needs to be done in the cleanroom.
There is
very little leeway regarding the literary freedoms in API-writing, though you
could work on different qualities of presentation and crossreferencing, and
copyright that. But the naked content/text is functional. You can't "reinvent"
it, or the result would just not work because of being incompatible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: scav on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
Another good bit:
The only reasonable conclusion that a jury can
draw
from this series of responses is that Professor Mitchell is
basing his
conclusion of substantial
similarity on the fact that both descriptions express
the
same idea. That, however, is not
infringement. See 17 U.S.C. §
102. Professor Mitchell’s
opinion about alleged substantial
similarity between
the Android and J2SE specifications must
therefore be disregarded
entirely.
See, if you hire a fake expert it's only a matter of
time
before they accidentally shred your case. I almost
hope Oracle call
"patent expert" Florian Mueller in the
second phase of the
trial.
---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had
no clothes, redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the
penguins. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:51 AM EDT |
There is a vast amount of creative expression in there quite apart from the
merger of idea and expression. And scenes a faire because facts are facts.
And... but that's not important, now.
My worry is that Oracle copied the creative expression from Bouncy Castle. I
hope they did not just run javadoc on the Bouncy Castle code and obfuscate the
creative expression.
Is there any way to get them off the hook?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
