|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
Sure but as somebody else pointed out, if it holds out on appeal, then the
reasoning and analysis in this ruling can be re-used. So when the same
conditions (or even a necessary subset) hold true, it forms a boundary (or a
basis for a test) for when API SSOs are not copyrightable. That test can be
summed up as: "Is what was copied necessary for interoperability or small
enough to fall under existing copyright exceptions (i.e. names)?". It's a
blueprint for determining what changes, if any, are necessary for
re-implementing an API in a manner free from copyright infringement arising from
the SSO. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
That makes it stronger, actually, not
weaker, from the standpoint of what he
knows is an inevitable appeal.
We have been watching a master at work,
gentlemen. Do you see now why I find
the law so fascinating?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|