|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
I haven't had a chance to look at the Samualson article yet - and to be honest,
I probably won't have time to do so (or to read the briefs in this case in any
detail, should I still think it important to do so) until July.
That said, I agree with you. How the law was interpreted in Whelan v. Jaslow
and in Computer Associates v. Altai (IIRC A-F-C focuses on abstracting out
ideas) and the literal text of 17 USC 102(b) are inconsistent. It should be
fixed and I hope that IBM argued on the basis of a plain reading of 17 USC
102(b) and against the correctness of Whelan and Computer Associates (to the
degree that it only filters out ideas). I don't know if Whelan has been
followed in the 9th Cir. but Computer Associates almost certainly has (although
I haven't Shepardized it myself).
All of this is well beyond the scope of the point I was making, though. I did
state in my first post in this thread that I was "picking a nit". In
particular I was replying to this statement in the OP: "Will the judge
instruct the jury that there is NO legally vetted definition of either APIs or
SSOs applied to software in US Common Law?". I was just pointing out that
SSO is an established legal concept, rightly or wrongly so.
BTW...did you have a chance to look at Jacobs article at 30 Jurimetrics J 91?
If so, what did you think? I only had a chance to skim bits of it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 08:12 PM EDT |
| And thank you also - I'm not sure where I left my manners today. ;) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
