|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
Surely not.
They can't believe that when an API specifies an interface which defines the
form of interaction with the expression of an idea implemented behind that
interface, that all implementations using the same interface are expressions of
the same idea and hence covered by the same patent.
BSF don't live on the same planet as the rest of us, but I doubt that they'd
make that elementary mistake. Unless it's not a mistake, but a deliberate
attempt to confuse the jury. But if so, I think they're underestimating the
competence of the judge.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 09:10 PM EDT |
That's the entire API argument in a nutshell. Oracle entire API case counted on
Judge Alsup making new law so Oracle could say "no one else can come
along and do the exact same specification."
If that statement by Judge
Alsup was tweeted accurately then the API portion of the case is
over.
--- 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|