|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
I'm not an expert on US copyright law, but I'm pretty sure that I am correct
here. I will gladly change my mind if you can find a case that supports your
position, though.
Mind you, I don't think you can because I don't think it exists. That's not to
say that non-literal elements of other literary works are not protected, just
that SSO does not apply because the concept, strictly speaking, doesn't apply in
those contexts.
It looks to me like the judge is simply restating the law here.
As far as I can tell, to the extent that Oracle is arguing that the SSO of the
manual is protected by copyright, they are arguing for a novel (as in new, not
as in book) kind of protection. I can see them doing this if they are arguing
that the documentation is a derivative work of the program, and so is entitled
to be protected in the same way, but I don't recall seeing it in the briefs or
the arguments so I remain unconvinced.
Can you cite Oracle's theory of why and how the SSO of the documentation should
be protected in using that exact term?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|