|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 02:03 AM EDT |
You pointed out the obvious error. The only argument is how many elements of
that quote of the law would have to be stricken in order to copyright-protect
the Java API ideas.
The other error is that Java would never exist if the ideas, procedures,
processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries
on which it is based were protected by copyright. The names of Alan Turing and
John von Neumann come to mind.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 04:02 AM EDT |
Quoting (with some snipping as well):
1) There is clearly intellectual property hidden there in
the Java API
2) Intellectual property is copyrightable
3) Copyright laws should protect the Java API
Which -if you think a moment about it- a nice
demonstration of why the term 'intellectual property'
should be 'out-law-ed'. In this 'chain of reasoning', the
term is so misused that it leads to a fully bogus
conclusion.
Comments upon the snips (incomplete...):
1) I think the right wording would be to say that a lot of
creativity went into designing the API, and/or that a lot
of brain-work was put into designing the API, but that is
not the same as 'intellectual property'. The designers of
the API probably do possess a lot of intellect. Also: A
thing can be either somewhere clearly, or hidden, but not
both at the same time.
2) Copyright is one of the 'things' that is usually
mistreated to 'fall under' the term 'intellectual
property', not the other way around. As an example: A
patent is also 'intellectual property', but a patent is
not copyrightable.
3) Seems like a conclusion from the previous, confused,
set of statements, but -upon reflection- is more likely
the pre-set conclusion for which a number of shaky
foundations have been made. We have the expression of a
judge 'as a matter of law' that an API is *not*
copyrightable, and no amount of confused use of the
term 'intellectual property' is about to change that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
