That's not my point. The original statement was:
Except that in
the Connectix case, the system they created that duplicates Sony's API (much
like Google did with Java) was deemed non-infringing. AKA: The judge felt that
the Sony API was not copyrightable.
This isn't true. The
District Court found that Sony's case of infringement was likely
to succeed and issued an injunction. The District Court made no finding of
infringement or non-infringement. Just likelihood of success for issuing the
injunction.
Per the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals:
The district court concluded that Sony was likely to
succeed on its infringement claim because Connectix's “intermediate copying” was
not a protected “fair use” under 17 U.S.C. § 107. The district
court enjoined Connectix from selling the Virtual Game Station or from copying
or using the Sony BIOS code in the development of other Virtual Game Station
products.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit's conclusion didn't
address infringement either. They did say if it infringed it was
fair use, and any other possible infringement wasn't worthy of an
injunction.
This is the full text of the 9th Circuit's
conclusion:
Connectix's reverse engineering of the Sony BIOS
extracted from a Sony PlayStation console purchased by Connectix engineers is
protected as a fair use. Other intermediate copies of the Sony BIOS made
by Connectix, if they infringed Sony's copyright, do not justify injunctive
relief. For these reasons, the district court's injunction is dissolved
and the case is remanded to the district court. We also reverse the
district court's finding that Connectix's Virtual Game Station has tarnished the
Sony PlayStation mark.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
The 9th
Circuit decision in this case avoided the issue of deciding infringement. They
did however determine that it was fair use.
They left the decision of
infringement up to the District Court but the case never got further. When
remanded, Connectix moved to have the case dismissed, and it was subsequently
settled without a decision.
No decision of infringement was made either way,
but a decision of Connectix' fair use was.
--nyarlathotep [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
