|
Authored by: mirrorslap on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
From page 35, starting at line 13:
"This order holds that, under the
Copyright Act, no matter how creative or
imaginative a Java method
specification may be, the entire world is entitled to
use the same method
specification (inputs, outputs, parameters) so long as the
line-by-line
implementations are different." [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
You quoted the first step above, where everyone is "free" to implement
the same functions (same declarations) as long as the implementing code is
different (not a copy or derivative work of the Oracle code).
You also address the second step in your self-reply, that the function
specification is not protected by copyright.
There's a third step, and that is that the SSO of these core APIs is not
protected because they constitute a "method of operation". The judge
devotes considerable discussion to this, explaining why the arrangement and
selection of APIs in the package/class/method hierarchy is not a
"taxonomy" (which could be protected as to elements of creative
expression) but rather like a menu system, intrinsically functional in nature
and with any creative expression elements not protectable because of exclusion
of methods of operations under applicable copyright law.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|