Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Looks like the injunction was reversed... | 148 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Looks like the injunction was reversed...

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT

but possibly not the presumption of copyrightability that
lead to it.

If the reason for the appeal's success was fair use, then
this doesn't undo the (stupid) idea that the functionality
and ideas were copyrightable in the first place.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think there's a danger of the judge ruling fair use on SSO, and punting copyrightable decision - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT
- Fair Use was submitted to the Jury - Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 05:20 AM EDT

how does this apply ...

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT

The other thing that people seem to ignore is that this activity is explicitly
legal under the DMCA (that most Draconian piece of crappy law), i.e. even the
DMCA provided the ability to reverse-engineer products for compatibility's sake.

I have to agree though - the ABI is exactly equivalent to the API relative to
Oracle vs Google. If you are allowed to reverse engineer things at the interface
level - how can it be copyrighted if the resulting product has been allowed as a
matter of law in other circumstances.

Maybe the judge will find his way to the right decision through this case?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )