|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
This is what the judge proposed:
With respect to the API
documentation, Oracle contends Google copied the English-language comments in
the copyrighted Java work and moved them over to the documentation for the 37
API packages in Android. Google agrees
that there are similarities in the
language but, pointing to differences as well, denies that its documentation is
a copy of the Java documentation. Google further asserts that the similarities
are largely the result of the fact that each API carries out the same functions
in both systems. Google again asserts the statutory defense of fair use. For the
API documentation issue, you do not need to be concerned with structure,
sequence, and organization, a concept that applies only to the compilable code
part of the case.
This indicates we both might have been wrong.
It seems the judge decided in favor of Google on the SSO of the docs but decided
in favor of Oracle on the content so it is only the content that the jury is
supposed to consider. I still think you're right that the judge was talking to
Google about the "big fat manual" but the judge's actual proposed jury
instructions make figuring out that hint less interesting.
Since Google
didn't copy the docs verbatim I don't see how Oracle's claims regarding the
content of the docs are legitimate unless their copyright extends to the ideas
contained in the docs. I keep thinking/hoping that some of Oracle's more
ridiculous claims will not only be a slam-dunk for Google but will also reduce
Oracle's credibility for their other claims. Their copyright case really feels
like it could be a house of cards. It could all come tumbling down when touched
with even the barest breath of reality.
---
Our job is to remind
ourselves that there are more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that
we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
