decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Were the APIs de minimis when compared to the full work? | 275 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Were the APIs de minimis when compared to the full work?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT
We know Oracle have some problems with their registrations on this topic.

We also know (I think) that there is no such complete work as the 37 APIs. The
full work is the entire java API set. Of which Android only uses a portion.

And of the portion, all they actually use are the names and signatures (ruled
to be not protected), and the SSO (which is entirely defined by the names ie.
java.math.max and its signature and all the other non protected names and
signatures fully specify the SSO. There is nothing else to it. It makes no
sense
to claim the SSO is covered but not the names. None at all.)

IANAL, but it seems that Oracle only have a claim on the full SSO of the java
APIs (which means they have nothing, as the names and signatures aren't
covered), and even if they do manage to sort out that rather intractable
sounding problem, the 37 / 166 de minimis issue seems to arise more
strongly.

And even in the case that they get past that, they then risk the judge ruling
that it's not copyrightable anyway.

by my (meagre) understanding, they have a serious uphill fight on that issue.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )