|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
They are talking about the defendant taking and using in its own program and
documentation elements described in the plaintiff's documentation and used in
the plaintiff's program.
What I think they are saying is that if you copy syntax, keywords, functions,
method calls, etc. (language + API docs) you are not copying "intellectual
creation". I would disagree with that characterization to the extent that
I think that languages and APIs are intellectual creation - an intellectual
creation does not have to be tangible. However I don't think it's protectable
intellectual creation since it's not expressive (except secondarily, in a
meta-sense, maybe) which is required for protectability.
Does that make sense?
Notwithstanding this fuzziness, they nailed it on the underlying policy reasons.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
Well, even when using an API, if one has a specific task with a specific purpose
in mind, depending on how restricted or "flexible" the API is, there
maybe only one exact way of using it. I don't see how "creative" or
"original" one can get with the code fragment if one needs to compare
two strings. There might be different strings at different times, but in the end
the exact same code fragment will using the exact same API in the exactly the
same way. Though the code fragment using a particular API may end up influencing
the more "creative" code that surrounds the code fragment using the
API due to restrictions or convenience that may come with using said API. The
"creative" parts of the code generally do not influence how a
particular API is used. At most it might determine which API (in most cases a
function or method) is being used, but the way that particular API is used will
have very little room (if any at all) for "creativity".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
