|
|
|
| Authored by: prhodes on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
Love this bit:
"Oracle has made much of nine lines of code that crept into both Android
and Java.This circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the
actual facts, as foundherein by the judge, will be set forth below for the
benefit of the court of appeals."
-Phil[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
Doesn't this summary basically refute the judge's position that the ruling is
only applicable to the 37 Java API's? I mean reimplementing the actual code
while reuding the API declarations for any API would also be covered by this
statement, would it not?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:58 PM EDT |
From Alsup's requests for both EU rulings and for the Sony Playstation emulator
rulings...making sure he is on solid ground.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ore on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
So long as the specific code used to implement a
method is
different, anyone is free under
the Copyright Act to write his or her
own code
Should not that really say "is not
copied"?
If someone independently writes the same code for some
routine, without seeing any other code, his own code is an
independent
creative work and should not be considered a
breach of
copyright.
---
Oliver Elphick [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
