|
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
Found it!In this case, the SSO of the 37 API packages is manifested,
in part, in a hierarchy of named packages, classes, methods, and other elements
such as interfaces and fields.
and,
To meaningfully
evaluate the SSO of the API packages, the jury will need to consider the named
elements as part of the structure. Without the named elements, the upper
portions of the hierarchy (everything above the method declarations) would be
incomprehensible:
As I understand it, Oracle are accusing Google
of copyright violation of the Java SE API Specification. Dr.
Reinhold, Chief Java Architect at Oracle, provided the following example showing
the hierarchy of some of the classes in the “java.nio.channels”
package
He did not show how that hierarchy was copied from the
asserted copyright protected document. If he is asserting that the hierarchy was
derived from an arrangement of files then that fails to meet the judge's
definition of creative expression fixated in a medium. More so if that was an
idea of a hierarchy gleaned from a copyright document.
I can see that,
by making a geek stare at all that API static, he will eventually see images,
but they have not shown where that is protected in their copyright
stuff.--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|