|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
And yet...
If it doesn't work, they didn't copy the API. They created
a different API.
This would be a real blow to the SSO argument. If it's
specifically the selection of "what to put where" that's the
copyrightable piece, "we put different things in different
places" seems like a pretty good defense.
Oracle would have to claim copyright not on a specific SSO
but on a "logical" arrangement of ideas into "things like
this." That's a much wider stretch of copyright law than
what they're already trying.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
Except that Google rewrote the code and all Oracle have is the SSO of the
packages and currently the Oracle lawyers are trying to get put into law a new
view of copyright.
The 37 API's can't really be viewed as independent either thier just parts of a
bigger pool of code and if you dug into the 37 its highly likley you'll find
bits copied from elsewhere.
Which begs the question of how is Oracle going to go forward with Java if they
don't have title to portions of it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: marcosdumay on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT |
I really don't know it that could be used as defense. But copying an API is
nearly always more expensive than creating a new one.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
