|
| Authored by: johnE on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
Although
even that case isn't directly relevant because it is
object
code, not the API that was copied.
It wasn't
just the API that was copied. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:10 PM EDT |
But Google's citing of this case is also out of left field -
it is
irrelevant: about intermediate copying of a program,
not actual copying and
distribution of an API.
Don't think it is irrelevant: don't forget
that software copyright and text copyright are mostly dealt with
equivalently.
The point here is that a BIOS was reverse-engineered for the
sake of recreating its functionality. The functionality is provided via a
system call mechanism. A system call mechanism is an API to the BIOS. If you
want to let foreign software run on a BIOS substitute you create yourself, you
need to recreate the API.
If reverse-engineering a BIOS in order to
determine and reimplement its API is covered by fair use, the whole "reimplement
an API" concept is compatible with fair use, whether you read the bytes of a
copyrightable BIOS or the specification text of a copyrightable API description. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
I don't think this judge views either case as directly
relevant to this case in itself. Although each does have
elements that could be used, as they were included in the list
of IP cases cited by both parties. I would love to see what
each and everyone of them have hi-lighted in all the prior law
cases though. Especially the Judge's notes and what he's hi-
lighted! ....but he's probably going to be even more pissed
that on every point both Oracle and Google oppose each other.
Meaning they're of no help to him any way!
The reality is that the copyright of API's has never had to be
dealt with directly by a judge in our court system. Especially
in being centered purely on the asinine SSO's of all things.
But it's the only thing Oracle has that could even possibly
get them Bejillions of Dollars in Damages. I'm sure this judge
knows he would have to make new case law if he decides for the
Copyrightability of all elements of API's. Especially ruinous
is the prospect that all the Structure, Sequence and
Organization of API's could be deemed Copyrightable, because
it's what makes code Inter-operable in the first place!
He does have the recent EU Court of Justice Decision to back
him up directly on the Copyrightability of API's. But maybe he
just wants the court system brought to it's knees in Copyright
Armageddon to go along with the equally as ridiculous
Thermonuclear Patent Wars going on now! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
