|
|
|
| Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
In the original High Court decision, here and see
paragraphs 317-319, it is clear that the judge did decide that the manuals
infringed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
It's a pity no one at Google took the time to point out that the creativity
element in the Java API is totally irrelevant — others have to copy it intact,
warts and all, for compatibility (not because of its outstanding design)/
They let Mark Reinhold insist on all the care that went into creating this API
without making him admit errors slipped in nevertheless (datetime handling,
UCS-32 sting encoding) and that neither Google nor even Sun/Oracle (in its new
Java versions) could afford to fix those well-known mistakes — all the
third-party code written around those mistakes far out-weighted the benefits of
letting creativity express itself to fix those well-known problems.
I'm sure it would have put the 'but they could have created their own API'
argument in another light if the jury had been let known the Java API was good,
but not exceptional, and that a big part of it was an accident of history not
state of the art anymore. Its only value is adoption and that was not done by
Sun but by universities and all the other third-parties that relied on Sun's
promise to keep the playing field fair and open.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
It is only through the choice, sequence and combination of
those
words, figures or mathematical concepts that the author expresses
his
creativity in an original manner.
I think the court is confused
between implementing an API and using one.
The implementation is bound by the
details of the interface and has no
leeway in the maner in which any sequence
can be expressed with respect
to the API. The "usage" of that API on the other
hand has much more
leeway since the application can be written to express many
different
behaviors by virtue of the applications intended purpose. For
example, a
string compare function has only a mathematically limited number of
ways
to compare two strings, thus the API itself is constrained, but the user
using
that API has an infinite number of strings that can be compared.
---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a
"technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
