|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
This comment is intentionally blank. Perhaps like the CD
that Oracle claims to be their certified copyright submission?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 07:08 PM EDT |
As most seem to have done, I understood Judge Alsup's remark
about losing on the "big fat manual" issue to be directed at
Google. However he may have had in mind a slightly
different comparison, one echoed in Oracle's comments and
briefing.
The losing comparison is likely taking some copied Oracle
documentation (or perhaps the declarations of the APIs) and
including that in a larger work, then claiming that only a
small fraction of the resulting work is copied.
The fair use doctrine has (as one of four considerations)
what fraction of an original (copyright protected) work has
been used. This (rather than the much, much larger work for
Android) is the proper "denominator" for comparison, and I
rather suspect Judge Alsup was telegraphing that to Google.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|