|
link
TL;DR:
copying and decompilation for purposes of compatibility were deemed to be "fair
use". This is a case that Google has referred to repeatedly in the current case
because it was heard in the 9th District so acts as a precedent for Oracle v.
Google. Google says that if copying and decompiling are fair use for making
things compatible then certainly just copying should be as well.
The judge
didn't buy it. The Java APIs are much bigger and more complex than what was
eventually copied in Sega v. Accolade. My worry about this reasoning is
that if there is a size/complexity threshold that will over-ride the
functionality/compatibility defense then as computers and software follow
Moore's law, soon almost all APIs will be covered by copyright.
But the
judge has to follow the rule of law. He is very well aware of the impact his
decision will have on the software industry so he knows it is very important to
get it right and very important to make his ruling as bullet-proof as possible.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts than
the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
