|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
Looks like Connectix were reverse-engineering the APIs that games rely on to
run. The appeals court held that the resulting work implementing the APIs was
fair use, because it contained no implementation code actually written by Sony.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xetheriel on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
Simple: Connectix created a system that emulated Sony's system or
"API", so that programs written for the PlayStation would also run on
their products.
Doesn't this sound familiar?
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. I don't think this was
specifically mentioned in the ruling, but that's the jist of it.
What Connectix was accused of was making copies of the copyrighted bios code for
the PlayStation.
---
Xetheriel
The wheel of time forever turns, and history repeats.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
Alsup may be looking for possible precedents for the SSO
being copyrightable.
Since it seems that the original adverse ruling against
Connectix was reversed and remanded, I would guess Oracle
would claim no names or symbols, and as a result not having
anything to do with Oracles current outrageous claims.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
I like this question. The facts and the reversal argue that it could favor
Google, if Van Nest and team can make the case that this is relevant. Oracle
would have to make the case that this is completely off point. This is
the lawyering I enjoy seeing: a pure debate. As to the
similarities:
- Connectix was bringing interoperability (games that
could run
on Playstation) to a different platform.
- Connectix was
doing this to sell its own product.
- While the concepts of the API
(which
in this case is the way an external program could interface with the
BIOS) are
not protected, the tangible expression, the code in the Playstation
BIOS is.
- Google, too, did not use Sun's implementing code, except in a
few trivial
non-material ways.
How is this
different?: - Google replicated a core
but minority portion of a
language and its library, using the reference materials
provided by Apache
Harmony, who in turn had strived to make a complete
replication of Sun's java
language.
- A language and its libraries are an
API to the language's
affiliated runtime, which in this case is the jvm. Google
was not trying to
interface with the jvm nor, trying to duplicate it in any but the
most abstract
of ways.
- Connectix wanted full 100% compatibility, so
that consumers
who had bought Playstation games could play them on another
platform. Google
was not concerned with consumers running their jvm byte
code binaries on
Android.
Now, in music, if I listened to a
recording, transcribed
the melody and lyrics and then sold my transcription
as sheet music, I am
infringing on the rights of the songwriter (though not the
recording
publisher). Sony v. Connectix argues to the point that music and APIs
differ,
with extrapolation from observation allowed for the latter. If the
similarities
are close enough and the key fact deciding Sony v. Connectix is that
implementing code was not used, then it's a solid line drive down the foul
lines,
and Google has at least a double.
Let me add that I do like
Judge
Alsup's style. The night before a take-home final is due, he adds a
non-trivial
compare and contrast question. Around here the question is asked
"Why is he
being mean to both
parties?" when the concern is over him being
mean to Google. Because, and one
can see this with the 7:30 start times, the
disinclination to postpone the trial,
and the assignments, he thinks Google
should have taken a license and Oracle
shouldn't have been or be asking for the
Moon for it. I could be projecting, of
course. It is my opinion that Google
used Sun's investment in java and the
goodwill of its developers in order to
come to market faster and with a more
attractive platform. That in and of
itself is not grounds for infringement and I
expect Oracle to come away with no
more than peanuts after having paid for an
8 course 1000 person banquet with
legal fees. I hope the real lessons learned
are don't be greedy (looking at
Sun/Oracle here) and take a license or use
a truly free and clear language or
write one's own. Oh yes, patents are written
so that the patent examiners are
confused over the actual novelty of the claim.
Live by the sword, die by the
sword, because now, Mr. or Ms. Patent Holder, you
have to explain what those
claims mean to a jury who will be cast adrift in a sea
of technical expert pros
and cons. There's an unintended pun there, but I'll own
it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
