|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:43 PM EDT |
Short answer? No! This court could only make a ruling
concerning the immediate case. It will take an appeal to 9th
Circuit to reaffirm and broaden this ruling to all API's!
This judge did not overstep his own District Court powers
and therefore kept his ruling in dealing with the specific
premise of the Non-Copyrightability of API SSO's!
In other words he's leaving it to the Higher Court of
Appeals to broaden the Non-Copyrightable issue of API SSO's
to encompass all elements of API's!!! (IANAL) ....and no I'm
certainly not a lawyer (ICANAL)! lol... ;-p[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: timkb4cq on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
Judge Alsup's ruling would hold for any Java API because the SSO, though it may
be creative, is at its heart functional.
The SSO of the APIs in a different language with different rules of syntax might
not be covered under his ruling.
Given the state of the law concerning Structure, Sequence & Organization of
software code, the Judge had to be careful not to assume facts not in evidence.
A hypothetical language might not use a hierarchical arrangement of its APIs
leaving the SSO purely creative & possibly protected. It would be a stretch
to sue even if that were the case, but the Judge didn't have to reach that issue
in this case and stretching his ruling to do so would have greatly increased the
chances of the inevitable appeal resulting in a remand.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Guil Rarey on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
It's a basic legal principle that dicta - explanatory commentary - is not
binding precedent, but that holding - a ruling itself with supporting analysis,
is. The ruling summary is broad and plain English, but it's dicta.
Unlike code, where comments are explicitly identified from executable code by
syntactic markers, because Law is written in natural language, distinguishing
dicta from holding is not entirely straightforward. Debates about separating
Dicta vs Holding for significant legal opinions can turn into legal versions of
EMACS vs vi pie fights.
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darrellb on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 06:49 AM EDT |
This ruling applies ONLY to Oracle and Google, and ONLY to the matters tried in
this case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
