|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
It seems to me like you just changed the names. Names are not copyrightable, the
judge said so. Any aspect of SSO which is nothing but names is uncopyrightable.
How could you have a different SSO without changing the names of anything.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 07:09 AM EDT |
The slide compared part of the dotty paths in nio in both the API Specification
and in the description on the Android website.
However, they are both representations (concepts, ideas, et-unprotectable-c).
The judge says that the SSO to be compared is in the API compilable code files
of both Java and Android. The judge also says that the expression must be fixed
in a medium. Oracle have not shown how the dotty paths are fixed as creative
expression in a medium.
One possible way could be as the dotty invocation of methods in each class
library implementation (I think that would be the declarations/signatures).
However, that is the content in individual files. You would have to assemble all
the implied SSO in all the files to create the SSO. That assembly is not fixed
in a medium.
Another way could be the expression of those dotty paths in the directory
structure for each package as a compilation. However, the work as a whole is all
166 packages. How is the expression fixed in all 166 and not only in individual
package directory trees?
The final issue is whether placing files in a directory tree constitutes 'fixing
in a medium' as required by the Act.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: scav on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
Because sequence is irrelevant. The tree of packages,
classes and methods is an unordered tree. It may be
presented in alphabetical order, but that's not protectable
nor relevant to how it is used by the compiler.
However much information is in a specific order of a list of
N things, there is about log2(N!) less bits of information
if the order doesn't matter.
Also, because the names aren't protectable, the SSO is an
*unlabelled* unordered tree. Less information still - you
only need about 2 bits per node of the tree (has a subtree,
has a next sibling).
You must view the SSO of an API as part of the work as a
whole, which is the entire source code of the implementation
+ declarations. Every byte of that is as much information as
4 nodes of the SSO tree.
There's no way the SSO alone makes up a proportion of the
information in the work as a whole that can ever be more
than de minimis, even if you were to copy it in its
entirety.
---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes,
redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|