A "musical phrase" is probably copyrightable, it really depends if you mean the notation itself, or... a phrase. (The nine lines = the nine notes? But I digress...)

To play devil's advocate, Oracle's argument might be that they have created their own notation, and that it is unique and create and allows more efficient understanding and represent music in a more beautiful way etc etc ad nauseum.

To continue the analogy, after this glorious creation (that despite everything is obviously based on the old, standard notation that everybody uses), they have allowed composers to use this notation for years. During this time they have been making money from their tools that make it easy to write music this way.

My understanding of Dalvik isn't great enough to continue this analogy perfectly but I guess that the idea would be that they've extended this notation somewhat and improved it for a different kind of music (even current notation doesn't convey swing very well). Fragmentation blah blah blah

Would any of this be protectable? I hope not. The Music Notation Project is certainly interesting in terms of this analogy:

Exploring alternative music notation systems — to make reading, writing, and playing music more enjoyable and easier to learn.

In conclusion, Oracle's case is a threat to musicians everywhere. Also, sorry if this post is a bit incoherent; I have to drink every time I see a new API analogy, or someone tweets about a lawyer huddle.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]