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
I think you may have it upside down | 687 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I think you may have it upside down
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 | # ]

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 )