|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
It's even worse because you don't even have to have your
copyright registered to sue. It could be just an idea in
someone's mind, never "fixated" anywhere.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT |
That Google "copied" java APIs wasn't in dispute - they definitely did
(they had to if they wanted to use/leverage "java" of course!).
Oracle's claims are based on Google's reimplementation having access to the java
API structure (presumably from documentation or interface files?) and then
creating an identical (except where it's not) API structure from that. So yeah,
it's still about direct copying.
Again, you can't (in theory, who knows what you can make a jury believe I guess)
violate copyright for something you never see. That's why clean room
implementations are ok - copyright only protects against copying, it doesn't
protect against independent creations.
Also worth noting that the jury couldn't decide on fair use - which means it's
still completely uncertain that Google would be guilty of anything even if APIs
are held to be copyrightable. Which - given that the judge seems to have been
fairly sensible to date - seems very unlikely to happen.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
