|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
| That seems to be a good signal for Google. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT |
Except that Sony didn't make an claims about the SSO of the APIs being protected
by copyright, so Oracle can argue that there is no precedent set in that case
for the arguments in this case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
The appeals court held that the resulting work implementing the APIs
was fair use, because it contained no implementation code actually written by
Sony.
That would not be my interpretation. It was the intermediate
step of copying that was deemed Fair Use, not the end result ("Connectix's
intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the
purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software.").
Any usage of "unprotected elements" would need no claim to Fair Use because it
would not, by definition, fall under the purview of copyright.
That
being said, it is a strange query by Judge Alsup as it offers little correlation
to the activities of the parties in this case, although it does somewhat speak
to where the line might be drawn for what should be considered "unprotected
elements".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
