|
Authored by: OmniGeek on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
While one could indeed say that Harmony had "all the license they
needed" (i.e., none), it's less potentially confusing, and much clearer, to
point out that 1) yes, Google did copy the function names and signatures from
the Java API specs (by way of Harmony docs, IIRC), but 2) the function names and
signatures (and their division among header files, in all reasonable
probability) are unprotectable under copyright, and also 3) the underlying
implementation is a separate, non-infringing work under any reasonable reading
of copyright law.
Unless Oracle's loony-tunes theory of expansive API copyright is affirmed (don't
hold your breath), the copyright case will end there, and Oracle won't be
wearing the victor's laurel crown.
Once the copyright case has been elephant-stomped (and doubtless rule-50-nuked
by the judge for good measure, to ensure that it stays dead through the appeal
process), the jury gets to sit through an equally thin patent infringement case
brought by the same counsel who overreached the first time. Don't expect the
jury to be particularly receptive to their case in the second round.
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|