decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Minor correction | 148 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Sony v. Connectix
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
As far as I can tell Sony did not allege that, the produce was infringing. They
alleged that intermediate copies made for reverse engineering were infringing.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Minor correction
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT
Just a minor correction:

The District Court Judge did feel that Sony's API's were copyrightable and
infringed, and as a result issued an injunction against Connectix.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit overturned the decision based on fair use. They
didn't explicitly say that the API's were or were not copyrightable.

As I understand the ruling, they punted on the question and simply stated that
whether they were copyrightable or not didn't matter.

If they were not copyrightable then what Connectix did was ok.

If they were copyrightable then what Connectix did fell under fair use and was
still ok.

So, either way what Connectix did was ok and the issue of copyrightability is
moot.

They then overturned the injunction and returned the case to the district
court.

-- nyarlathotep

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think you are on to something
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT
Connectix copied BIOS and other code to enable them to create their own
compatible version of the API. There was nothing in the original and secret API
document that could be copied and that was the document/collected
work/compilation/directory-of-files that had the Sony SSO fixed in its media. In
other words, the Sony creative expression was never there for Connectix to
copy.

It's the same old problem. There is no way of showing how the protected Oracle
creatively expressed SSO came to be fixed in the media in order that Google
could copy it by using Harmony's code.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )